Abhishek Investment (P) Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1317/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85662 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AND ITA NO AHD ITO VS AB
• Keywords: Deemed dividend

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. ./ I.T.A. NO.1128/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 2. ./ I.T.A. NO.1317/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 1. ITO, WARD-1(1) AHMEDABAD 2. ABHISHEK INVESTMENT (P) LTD. AHMEDABAD / VS. 1. ABHISHEK INVESTMENT (P) LTD. ABHISHEK HOUSE 5, SHRIMALI SOCIETY NR.NAVRANGPURA- JAIN DERASAR,AHMEDABAD 2. ITO WARD-1(1) AHMEDABAD ' ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAFCA 2441 P ( '% / APPELLANTS ) .. ( &''% / RESPONDENTS ) REVENUE B Y : SHRI ROOP CHAND, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE B Y : SHRI R.C. SHAH, A.R. () / DATE OF HEARING 05/02/2015 *+,-) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12/02/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE CROSS-APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSE E ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VI, AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 22/02/2011 PER TAINING TO ITA NO.1128 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.1317/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. ABHISHEK INVESTMENT (P) LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 2 - ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED O RDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO .1128/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2006-07. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,83,425/- WHICH WAS TREATED AS DEE MED DIVIDEND U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE I.T.ACT. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO THE EXTENT MENTIONED ABOVE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO D ISCLOSE HIS TRUE INCOME. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. THE APPE LLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 18/09/2008, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE ADDITION OF RS.19,83,425/- TREATING THE LOAN AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM M/S.ABHISHEK ENGINEERS PVT.LTD. AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. APART FROM THIS, ITA NO.1128 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.1317/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. ABHISHEK INVESTMENT (P) LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 3 - THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF INCOME-TAX AMOUNTING TO RS.1,289/- AND CLAIM OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS.495/-. AGAIN ST THIS, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE US, WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSIONS DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF DEEMED DIVI DEND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MAKE THE SAID ADDITION IN THE HAND S OF SHAREHOLDER; NAMELY, SHRI PUNIT J.SHAH OR ANY OTHER MAJOR SHAREH OLDER IN ABHISHEK ENGINEERS PVT.LTD. NOW, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVE NUE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE DIRECTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) HAVE PR EFERRED THE PRESENT CROSS-APPEALS. 3. THE SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND S UBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE AO TREATING THE LOAN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FROM M/S.ABHISHEK ENGINEERS PVT.LTD. AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT SHRI PUNITBHAI J ADAVJI SHAH WAS ALSO BENEFICIARY BEING OWNER OF THE EQUITY SHAREHOLDER O F M/S.ABHISHEK ENGINEERS LTD. HOLDING 30% OF THE VOTING POWER DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND, THEREFORE, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE LOAN AMOUNT AS DEEMED DIVIDEND RECEIVED FROM M/S.ABHISHE K ENGINEERS PVT.LTD, WHEREIN ONE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE AS SESSEE-COMPANY WAS ALSO A BENEFICIARY AND WAS HOLDING EQUITY SHARES OF M/S.ABHISHEK ENGINEERS PVT.LTD. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LOAN AMOU NT WAS NOT GIVEN IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS AND NO COMMERCIAL EXP EDIENCY IS ITA NO.1128 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.1317/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. ABHISHEK INVESTMENT (P) LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 4 - DEMONSTRATED FOR GIVING SUCH LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE-C OMPANY. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THE AO WAS JUSTIF IED IN TREATING THE LOAN AMOUNT AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 (22)(E) OF THE ACT AS THESE PROVISIONS OF SECTION ARE NOT APPLICAB LE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS DEMONSTRATE D BEFORE THE AO THAT ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY IS ALSO GIVING LOANS AND ADVANCES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED I N CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO FOR TREATING THE LOAN AMOUNT AS DE EMED DIVIDEND. 3.2. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A NON-BANKING FINANCE COMPANY AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE TRANSACTION AS A BUSINESS TRANSACTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT ITS ACTIVITY OF FINANC E WAS PERMITTED UNDER THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 AND OR ANY OTHER L AW. HENCE, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE-COMPANY. 4. 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) IN PARA-2.3 OF HIS ORDER HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ITA NO.1128 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.1317/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. ABHISHEK INVESTMENT (P) LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 5 - 2.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND APPELLANTS SUBMISSION. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS A RE THAT APPELLANT TOOK LOAN FROM ABHISEK ENGINEERING PRIVAT E LTD. SHRI PUNIT J SHAH WAS HAVING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN BOT H THE COMPANIES AND ACCORDINGLY THE LOAN ADVANCED BY ABHISEK ENGINE ERING PRIVATE LTD. TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS TAXABLE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF IT ACT. APPELLA NT SAID THAT IT WAS BUSINESS ADVANCE FOR COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATION B UT THE SAID ADVANCE CANNOT BE TREATED AS GIVEN IN NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS SINCE THE LENDER COMPANY IS NOT IN MONEY LENDING BU SINESS. EVEN THE VOLUME OF TOTAL LENDING AS COMPARED TO THE BUSI NESS OF ABHISEK ENGINEERING PRIVATE LTD IS NOT EVEN 10% THEREFORE I T CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT WAS THE LOAN GIVEN IN ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 (22)(E) I S CLEARLY APPLICABLE AND LOAN AMOUNT HAS TO BE TREATED AS DEE MED DIVIDEND. CONSIDERING THE FACT OF THE CASE, THE TRANSACTION O F LOAN IS TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. APPELLANT IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER IN THE LENDER COMPAN Y HOWEVER ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAME AS DEEMED DIVIDE ND IN HANDS OF APPELLANT COMPANY. APPELLANTS MAIN OBJECTION WAS THAT IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT MUMBAI AND RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT REFERRED IN APPELLANTS SU BMISSION, THE ADDITION OF DEEMED DIVIDEND CAN BE MADE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF SHAREHOLDER. IF THE RECIPIENT OF THE LOAN IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER AND TRANSACTION IS COVERED BY THIS PROVISION, THE ADDIT ION IS TO BE MADE IN HANDS OF SHAREHOLDER. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF ITAT SPECIAL BENCH AND RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, I AGREE WITH THE AP PELLANT THAT ADDITION FOR DEEMED DIVIDEND HAS TO BE MADE IN HAND S OF SHAREHOLDER ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSING OFFICER I S DIRECTED TO REMOVE THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND I N THE HANDS OF APPELLANT AND MAKE THE SAID ADDITION IN HANDS OF SH AREHOLDER SHRI PUNIT J SHAH OR ANY OTHER MAJOR SHAREHOLDER IN ABHI SEK ENGINEERING PRIVATE LTD IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF ITAT SPECIAL BENCH AND RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT. ITA NO.1128 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.1317/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. ABHISHEK INVESTMENT (P) LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 6 - 4.1. FROM THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A), IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE RAJ ASTHAN HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HOTEL HILLTOP (200 8) 217 CTR 527 (RAJ.) AND THE ORDER OF THE ITAT MUMBAI E SPECIAL BENCHR ENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. BHAUMIK COLOUR (P) LTD. REPORTED AT (2009)120 TTJ 865(MUMB)[SB]. THE REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANYTHING ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS A SHAREHOLD ER OF M/S.ABHISHEK ENGINEERS PVT.LTD. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE AO. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1317/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2000-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LOAN OF RS.1983425 RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR FROM ABHI SHEK ENGINEERS PVT.LTD. IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS IS TAX ABLE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE I.T.ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE LENDER COMPANY IS NOT IN THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DEALING WITH THE DECIS ION OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF ITO VS . KRISHNONICS LTD. REPORTED IN 119 ITD 49 (AHD) WHICH WAS CITED A ND WHICH IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND TH EREBY ERRED IN NOT EXCLUDING THE SAID LOAN FROM THE PURVIEW OF THE DE EMED DIVIDEND. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT OF ITA NO.1128 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.1317/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. ABHISHEK INVESTMENT (P) LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 7 - FACTS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE PROVISIONS OF SE C.2(22)(E) ARE NOT APPLICABLE AND, HENCE, THE LOAN OF RS.1983425 RECEI VED CANNOT BE TAXED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. 5.1. THE GRIEVANCE IN THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS THA T THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO MAKE THE ADDIT ION IN THE HANDS OF SHAREHOLDER SHRI PUNIT J SHAH OR ANY OTHER MAJOR SH AREHOLDER IN ABHISHEK ENGINEERS PVT.LTD. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GIVING SUCH DIRECTIO N TO THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS DEMONSTRATE D THAT SECTION 2(22)(E) CANNOT BE APPLIED ON THE FACTS OF THE PRES ENT CASE AS THE LOAN AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF B USINESS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS ALSO DEMONSTRATED FROM THE ME MORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY, NAMELY ABHISHEK ENGINEE RS PVT.LTD., WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT ON E OF THE OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY IS TO ADVANCE, DEPOSIT OR LEND MONEY, SECUR ITIES AND PROPERTIES TO OR WITH ANY COMPANY, BODY CORPORATE, FIRM, PERSO N OR ASSOCIATION WHETHER FALLING UNDER THE SAME MANAGEMENT OR OTHERW ISE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THIS OBJECT, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS OF M/S.ABHISHEK ENGINEERS PVT.LTD. 5.2. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR ADOPTED THE REASONIN G OF THE AO. ITA NO.1128 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.1317/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. ABHISHEK INVESTMENT (P) LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 8 - 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY ACCEPTING ONE OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASS ESSEE-COMPANY IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER OF M/S.ABHISHEK ENGINEERS PVT.LTD., THE REFORE THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY . THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW TH E ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DIRECTION OF THE LD.CIT(A). THE O NLY CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IN THE MEMORAN DUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE M/S.ABHISHEK ENGINEERS PVT.LTD. THAT COMPANY HAD OBJECT TO ADVANCE, DEPOSIT OR LEND MONEY, SECURITIES AND PROP ERTIES TO OR WITH ANY COMPANY, BODY CORPORATE FIRM, PERSON OR ASSOCIATION . THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THAT COMPANY. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE FACT THAT THE SAID COMPANY IS NOT A NON-BANKING FINANCE COMPANY AND IT WAS ALSO NOT D EMONSTRATED AS TO HOW THE LOAN TRANSACTION AS EFFECTED BY THE SAID CO MPANY ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, THE REGULATIONS F RAMED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ALSO THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. TH E BUSINESS OF BANKING AND FINANCE IS REGULATED BY THE RESERVE BAN K OF INDIA AND IN CASE A CORPORATE ENTITY, PERMISSION FROM RBI AND OT HER REGULATORY AUTHORITIES IS REQUIRED FOR CARRYING OUT SUCH BUSIN ESS. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH PERMISSION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THA T THE LOAN TRANSACTION IS NOT MADE DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. THEREF ORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY ITA NO.1128 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.1317/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. ABHISHEK INVESTMENT (P) LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 9 - MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, SAME IS HEREBY REJECTED. MOREOVER, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO HA S BEEN DELETED BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE SHAREHOLDER AGAINST WHOM THE DIRECT ION HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR ADDITION IS NOT BEFORE US IN APPEAL. IF THE SH AREHOLDER FEELS THAT THE IMPUGNED DIRECTION IS ILLEGAL OR UNJUSTIFIED, THE L EGAL RECOURSE IS AVAILABLE TO HIM UNDER THE ACT. WE WOULD BE EXCEEDING OUR JU RISDICTION IF WE GRANT A RELIEF TO THE PERSON WHO IS NOT BEFORE US. THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE REJECTED. 7. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENU E AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THURSDAY, THE 12 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 12/ 02 /2015 1..,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.1128 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND ITA NO.1317/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. ABHISHEK INVESTMENT (P) LTD. ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 10 - !'#$#%! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '% / THE APPELLANT 2. &''% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 234 5 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 5 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-VI, AHMEDABAD 5. 67& 34 , 34- , 2 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 79:;( / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '6 & //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 10.2.15 (DICTATION-PAD 20 - PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 10/11.2.15 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.12.2.15 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 12.2.15 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