M/s. Abhay Diamond, Surat V. The ACIT, B.K. Circle, Palanpur

ITA 1392/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7746 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL K PATEL
• Keywords: Capital expenditure
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1392/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) M/S.ABHAY DIAMOND C/O.SANGHVI EXPORT INTL PVT.LTD.101, DTC BLDG., DALGHIYA STREET MAHIDHARPURA, SURA-395 003 VS. THE ACIT BK CIRCLE PALANPUR 385 001 [PAN NO. AAFFA 3157 M] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MEHUL K. PATEL, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 17/07/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/ 09 /2018 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2014 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(APPEALS)-XX, AHMEDABAD [LD.CIT(A) IN SHORT] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2010 -11 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2013 PASSED BY THE ACIT, B.K. CIRCLE, PALANP UR. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAI NST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.13,66,000/- IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OUT OF THE SALARY EXPENSES AS WELL AS LEVYING OF IN TEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S 'THE ACT') AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EXPLANATION D ATED 08.02.2013 GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. - 2 - ITA NO.1392/AHD/2014 M/S.ABHAY DIAMOND VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 3. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE CASE IS THI S THAT THE ASSESSEE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF DIAMOND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 08.10.2010 THROUGH ELECTRONIC MEDIA DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.25,46, 340/-. UPON SCRUTINY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED WITH A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) OF THE ACT ON 23.09.2011 FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER NOTICE DATED 18.07.2012 ALONG WITH THE Q UESTIONNAIRE. 4. NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FOLLOWED BY A WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS AND/OR EXPLANATION DATED 08.02.2013 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER, BEING DISSATISFIED WITH THE SAME, THE AO DISALLOWED THE SALARY AMOUNT OF R S.15,66,000/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) GAVE PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ESTIMATING THE MONTHLY SALARY TO THE TUNE OF RS.25,000/- DURING TH E PERIOD OF EIGHT MONTHS WHEN NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY WAS FOUND IN THE BOOKS TOTALLING TO RS.2,00,000/- WAS ALLOWED. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.13,66,000/- WAS FOUND TO BE NO T JUSTIFIED AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AT T HE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT IT IS THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A LULL IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE TEMPORARILY DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 2009 TO DEC EMBER 2009 BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLETE CESSATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES BY THE AS SESSEE COMPANY. THE EXPENDITURE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WAS INCURRED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRADE WHICH WAS INCIDENTAL TO HIS BUSINESS FOR KEE PING THE TRADE GOING ON. HE THUS PRAYED FOR DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW THEREBY ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY ASSESSEE AS CLAIMED. THE LD.AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ADIT VS. DOLPHIN DRILLING LTD. IN ITA NO.6393/DEL/2012 FOR AY 2009-10, DELIVERED ON 29 TH JUNE, 2013. - 3 - ITA NO.1392/AHD/2014 M/S.ABHAY DIAMOND VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 6.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE O F THE REVENUE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE PERIOD AS MENTIONED ABOVE AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO LOGIC TO CONTINUE IN CUTTING EXPENSES ON THE SALARY OF THE EMPLOYEES. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT WHEN THERE WAS A CESSATION OF BUSINE SS SO-CALLED EXPENSES IS NOT ALLOWABLE. HE RELIES UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE L EARNED AO. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES APPEARING F OR THE PARTIES, WE HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE AO UPON PERUSAL OF DOCUMENTS FOUND THAT NO ACTIVITY WAS CAR RIED OUT FROM APRIL-2009 TO DECEMBER 2009 AND A NOTICE ASKING FOR EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE PROPORTIONATE EXPENSES OF THOSE PERIOD WOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED WAS ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY WHEREOF DETAILED EXPLANATION DATED 08.02.2013 WAS DULY FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE EXPLANATION DATED 0802 .2013 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO BEING PART OF THE RECORD BEFORE US WH EREFROM WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 2009 TO DECEMBER 2009 THERE WAS A BUSINESS LULL OF THE ASSESSEE DUE TO VARIOUS REASON S INCLUDING THE DOWNFALL OF DOLLAR PRICE, FLUCTUATION IN DIAMOND PRICE DUE TO RECESSION IN EU ROPE AND AMERICA. HOWEVER, THEY HAD TO MAINTAIN THEIR PERMANENT EMPLOYEES AT THE RE GULAR PAY WITHOUT REDUCING THE SALARY, AND HAD TO WAIT FOR THE RIGHT TIME TO PENETRATE IN THE MARKET. SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN THE DOLLAR PRIZE WENT DOWN IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2 009, THE ASSESSEE STARTED BUYING DIAMONDS AND ULTIMATELY COULD MAKE THE MARKET IN TH E MONTH OF JANUARY 2010. THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTING VOUCHERS P RODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE EXAMINED ON TEST CHECK BASIS. THE NECESSARY AUDIT R EPORT ALONG WITH THE SUBMISSION WITH PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT WERE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED SA LARY EXPENSES OF RS.23,49,000/-. THE AO, HOWEVER, MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.15,66,000 /- IN RESPECT OF THE SALARY EXPENSES FOR THE REASON THAT FROM THE MONTH OF MAY 2 009 TO DECEMBER 2009 NO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES - 4 - ITA NO.1392/AHD/2014 M/S.ABHAY DIAMOND VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 WERE CARRIED OUT AND THE SALARY CLAIMED DURING THAT PARTICULAR PERIOD WAS JUST TO INCREASE THE EXPENSES IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE NET PROFITS. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) IN APPEAL CAME TO A FINDING TH AT THE CLAIM OF SALARY OF THE PERIOD IN QUESTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY WOR K TAKEN BY SUCH EMPLOYEES. THE LD. CIT(A) FORMED AN OPINION THAT IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE BUSINESS AND ITS ACTIVITY AS A GOING CONCERN MINIMUM NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ARE REQUI RED AND ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED RS.25,000/- AS THE MONTHLY SALARY TOTALLING TO RS. 2,00,000/- FOR THE PERIOD FROM MAY- 2009 TO DECEMBER-2009 AND ALLOWED THE SAME AND THE REST AMOUNT OF RS.13,66,000/- WAS CONFIRMED. 10. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT REJECTED THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS, NEITHER HAS SPECIFIED ANY DEFECTS IN THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES. BEFORE THE FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE CLARIFIED THE POSITION OF HIS BUSINESS DURING THE P ERIOD COMMENCING FROM MAY-2009 TO DECEMBER-2009 IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM FOR DED UCTION ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS THE SALARY OF THE EMPLOYEES. HE F URTHER ADDED THAT THE EXPENDITURE AS EXPLAINED WAS NOT COMING UNDER THE PURVIEW OF SECTI ONS 30 TO 36 OF THE ACT, NOT A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN NATURE NEITHER A PERSONAL EXPENDITUR E OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE BUS INESS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS EXCLUSIVELY EXPENDED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. NEITHER THE SAME HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHICH IS AN OFFENCE OR IS PROHIBITED BY ANY LAW. THOUGH THIS EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LD.CIT(A) HE WAS NOT SATISFIED AS TO THE TOTAL CLAIM OF SALARY TO THE TUNE OF RS.2 3,49,000/-. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ESTIMATED RS.25,000/- PER MONTH TOWARDS THE SALARY OF THE EMPLOYEES AS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PERIO D COMMENCING FROM MAY-2009 TO DECEMBER-2009 SINCE THERE WERE NO BUSINESS ACTIVITI ES COMPARED TO THE REST PERIOD WHERE THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT ITS BUSINESS IN FULL SWING . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY JUSTIFICATION AND WORK TAKEN BY THE EMPLOYEES IN THE INTERVENING PERI OD, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE AOS - 5 - ITA NO.1392/AHD/2014 M/S.ABHAY DIAMOND VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 ACTION TO CERTAIN EXTENT IN THE MANNER AS AFORESTAT ED. HE THUS, ESTIMATING ONLY RS.25,000/- AS THE SALARY OF THE EMPLOYEES PER MONT H TOTALLING TO RS.2,00,000/- FOR THE PERIOD OF EIGHT MONTHS AND ALLOWED THE SAME CONFIRM ING THE REST AMOUNT OF ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.13,66,000/-. 10.1. WE FIND THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FA ILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS A LULL IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE OR A TEMPORARY SUSPENS ION DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY REVIVED IN THE MONTH OF JANUA RY 2010 AND THERE WAS NO COMPLETE CESSATION AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAVING NO OTH ER ALTERNATIVE HAD TO MAINTAIN ITS ESTABLISHMENT BY PAYING THE FIXED SALARIES TO THE PERMANENT EMPLOYEES OF THE FIRM. 11. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE JUDGEMENT RELIED UPO N BY THE LD.AR IN THE MATTER OF DOLFIN REELING LTD. VS. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATIO N) IN ITA NO.6393/DEL/2012 FOR AY 2009-10 WHERE THE COURT HAS DEALT WITH AN IDENTICAL MATTER. FURTHER THAT, THE LD.TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE HI GH COURT AT DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANITA JAIN (2009) 182 TAXMAN 173 (DEL), THE REL EVANT PARAGRAPHS WHEREOF IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW. 4. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, CONTENTIONS, CITATION AND MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US, WE OBSERVE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: - '3.2 THE FACTS AS BROUGHT OUT BY THE LD. AO AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. ARS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. AN IMPORTANT FACT MENTIONED IN THE AVER MENTS OF THE LD. ARS EXTRACTED ABOVE IS THAT THE APPELLANT CONCERN COULD PROCURE BUSINES S FOR ITSELF DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10. THIS WOULD READILY PROVE A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS A TEMPORARY LULL IN BUSINESS D NOT A COMPLETE CESSATION OF ACTIVITIES. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. ARS MERELY ILLUSTRATE AND CONFIRM A WELL ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PRECEDENT THAT EXPENSES OF A BUSINESS EN DURING A LULL PERIOD SHALL BE ALLOWED IF IT IS NOT PROVED THAT THERE IS A COMPLETE CESSATION OF ACTIVITIES. ALSO THE LD. AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE CLAIM, EXPENSES FOR ANY CONSIDERATION ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF EXPE NSES CLAIMED. THUS KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONSPECTUS OF FACTS IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLA NT WAS MERELY GOING THOUGH A TEMPORARY LULL IN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND THE BUSINESS WAS VE RY MUCH ALIVE. THUS THE EXPENSES - 6 - ITA NO.1392/AHD/2014 M/S.ABHAY DIAMOND VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 CLAIMED ARE ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS WITH RESPECT TO GROUND OF APPEALS NUMBERS 1 AND 2.' 5. IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF ANITA JAIN (SUPR A), WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORED THE VERY FACT THAT THERE WAS A TEMPORARY LU LL IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS NOT A CESSATION OF BUSINESS OF ACTIVITY. THERE FORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONTINUAT ION OF ITS BUSINESS WHICH DESERVE TO BE ALLOWED. DURING THE ARGUMENT, THE AR HAS SUBMITTED A DETAIL OF GROSS RECEIPTS FROM AY 2004-05 TO 2012-13 WHICH REVEALS THAT EXCEPT ASSESS MENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL I.E. 2009-0, THE GROSS RECEIPT OF THE A SSESSEE IS OF HIGH VOLUME DURING THE PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS WHICH CLEARLY REVEAL S THAT THERE WAS A TEMPORARY LULL IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL. 6. THE DETAIL OF GROSS RECEIPTS HAS NOT BEEN DIS PUTED BY THE DR WHICH CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT DURING THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE BUSINESS OF T HE ASSESSEE AGAIN CONTINUED AND THE ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS ACTIVITIES DURING THIS PERIOD. IN THIS SITUATION, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THERE WAS A TEMPORARY LUL L DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE BU SINESS ACTIVITIES WERE AGAIN STARTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS BY RECEIVI NG HUGE AMOUNTS. 7. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER WRONGLY DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES AND MADE ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHI CH WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) BY PASSING THE IMPUG NED ORDER. WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY INFIRMITY, PERVERSITY OR ANY OTHER VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R. HENCE, GROUND NOS.1 TO 4 OF THE REVENUE BEING DEVOID OF MERITS ARE DISMISSED. 11. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE MATTER AND THE JUDGEMENT ON THE SIMILAR FACTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.AR, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RIGHTLY FOR DEDUCTION OF THE SALARY TO THE TUNE OF RS.23,49 ,000/- WHICH WAS INCURRED BY IT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR SINCE THOUGH THERE WAS A T EMPORARY LULL IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PERIOD COMMENCING FROM MAY-2009 TO DECEMBER-2009 TO KEEP THE BUSINESS RUNNING AND TO WAIT FOR THE ACCURATE TIME TO CAPTURE THE MARKET ONCE AGAIN. THE ASSESSEE INCURRED THE SALARY TOWARDS EMPLOYEES FOR THE REASON WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED - 7 - ITA NO.1392/AHD/2014 M/S.ABHAY DIAMOND VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 ABOVE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TOWA RDS ESTIMATION OF EXPENDITURE OF SALARY TO THE TUNE OF RS.25,000/- P.M. FOR EIGHT MONTHS WH EN THERE WAS A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION AND/OR LULL IN THE BUSINESS WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD N O OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO INCUR SUCH COST TOWARDS ITS EMPLOYEES FOR TO KEEP THE BUSINES S RUNNING. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROPER JUSTIFICATION TOWARDS CONFIRM ATION OF ADDITION OF RS.15,66,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID EXPENSE HAS NOT BEEN INCUR RED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING EIGHT MONTHS PERIOD WHEN THERE WAS NO WORK TAKEN BY THE E MPLOYEES UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE PRESENT FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A ND ALLOW THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND. 12. SO FAR AS THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A, 234B A ND 234C IS CONCERNED, THOUGH IT IS MANDATORY BUT THE SAME IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE A ND, THEREFORE, NO ORDER NEED BE PASSED IN THIS RESPECT. THE SAID GROUND IS THEREFORE ALLO WED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27/ 09 /2018 SD/- SD/- ( WASEEM AHMED ) ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/ 09 /2018 .., . ../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS - 8 - ITA NO.1392/AHD/2014 M/S.ABHAY DIAMOND VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD 5. !'# , $ , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. #() *+ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ! //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION ..25.9.18 (DICTATION-PAD 10+ PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 25.9.18 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.27.9.18 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 27.9.18 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