M/s. Sun Transporters, Mehsana V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2, Mehsana

ITA 1446/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: 144620514 RSA 2008
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 194C; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D. K. TYAGI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1446/ AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) M/S. SUN TRANSPORTERS, 45, UMIYA SHOPPING CENTRE, HIGHWAY, MEHSANA - 384002 VS. ITO, WARD 2, MEHSANA PAN/GIR NO. : AAGFS5513A (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SUNIL TALATI, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI JAMES KURIAN, DR DATE OF HEARING: 19.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.01.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) GANDHINAGAR DATED 20.02.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED C.IT.(APPEALS) ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY AND INTERE ST PAID TO PARTNERS AMOUNTING TO RS.4,08,653/-. ON THE FACTS A ND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE COMPLI ANCE OF FURNISHING THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 184(4) WERE D ULY COMPLIED WITH AND HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY AND INTER EST PAID TO PARTNERS WAS PATENTLY WRONG. IT BE SO HELD NOW AND THE SALARY AND INTEREST PAID TO THE PARTNERS BE ALLOWED AS CLAIMED . 2. THE LEARNED C.IT.(APPEALS) ERRED BOTH IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ERRONEOUS ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER OF MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.24,23,085/-. THE EXPE NSES OF HIRE I.T.A.NO.1446 /AHD/2008 2 CHARGES OF TRUCKS AMOUNTING TO RS.24,23,085/- WAS G ENUINELY INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FO R THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAVING INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 24,23,0857- AND HAVING PAID HIGH HIRE CHARGES TO THE OWNERS OF THE TRUCKS, THE SAME BEING GENUINE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BE ALLOWED. 3. THE LEARNED C.IT.(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CO NFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 24,23,085/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF T HE I.T.ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DE DUCT ANY TAX AT SOURCE AS PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194C OR ANY PROVISION FOR IDS IS NOT APPLICABLE. IN VIEW OF THIS THERE CANNOT BE ANY DIS ALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(1A). IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH NO SEPARATE ADDITION ON THIS GROUND IS MADE, NO ADDITION BE MADE ALTERNATIVELY A LSO ON THIS GROUND. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME BE SO HELD AN D SO DIRECTED NOW. 4. THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN TOTO. 5. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED C.I.T.(APP EALS) IS BAD IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS . IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME BE HELD SO NOW. 6. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND/OR TO AMEND ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING. 2. REGARDING GROUND NO.1, THE FACTS ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S DEBITED RS.2,14,879/- REGARDING PARTNERS INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND RS.1,93 ,774/- ON ACCOUNT OF PARTNERS SALARY EXPENDITURE TOTAL RS.4,08,653/-. I T IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE FIRM UNDERWENT A CHAN GE IN ITS CONSTITUTION IN AS MUCH AS THREE PARTNERS HAVE RETIRED FROM THE FIRM AND THREE NEW PARTNERS HAVE JOINED W.E.F. 01.04.2004. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF THE R ECONSTITUTED PARTNERSHIP DEED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AS REQUIRED U/ S 184(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT AS PER SECTIO N 185 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, NO DEDUCTION BY WAY OF ANY PAYMENT OF IN TEREST, BONUS, COMMISSION AND REMUNERATION WHATSOEVER NATURE CALLE D MADE BY A FIRM TO I.T.A.NO.1446 /AHD/2008 3 A PARTNER OF THE FIRM WHICH HAS NOT FULFILLED CONDI TIONS LAID DOWN IN SUB- SECTION (4) OF SECTION 184 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 SHOULD BE ALLOWED. IN THIS MANNER, THE A.O. MADE DISALLOWANCE OFRS.4,0 8,653/- IN RESPECT OF THE PARTNERS INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND PARTNERS SA LARY EXPENDITURE. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS AND NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 32-38 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE SAME WAS SUBMITTED TO THE A.O. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH THE LETTER DATED 13.08.2007 COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 39 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION REN DERED IN THE CASE OF ITO VS DIGITRONICS IN I.T.A.NO. 281/AHD/2004 DATED 28.0 3.2008, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 59-62 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 4. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FO R DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND S ALARY TO PARTNERS IS THIS THAT CERTIFIED COPY OF THE AMENDED PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE PR ESENT YEAR SINCE THERE WAS CHANGE IN THE PARTNERS DURING THIS YEAR. AS PE R THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DIGITRONICS (SUPRA), THERE WAS THE DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION IN R ESPECTS OF INTEREST AND SALARY PAYMENT TO THE PARTNERS IF CERTIFIED COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED IS NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RELEVANT PARS OF THI S TRIBUNAL ORDER IS PARA 5 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: I.T.A.NO.1446 /AHD/2008 4 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DU RING THE YEAR TOGETHER WITH COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED CERTIFIED BY ONE PARTNER AND NOT BY BOTH THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM. THE A O ASSES SED THE INCOME U/S 143(3) AT A LOSS OF RS.7,00,736/-. THEREAFTER, THE A O REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE AC T AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN THE STATUS OF A O P AND DISALLOWED PAYMENT OF INTEREST MADE TO THE PARTNERS OF RS.1,81 ,877/- AND ALSO DISALLOWED CARRY FORWARD OF THE LOS S OF RS.7,00,736/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCOM PANIED WITH THE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED CERTIFIED BY BOTH THE PARTNERS WHICH WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF SE CTION IS- OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED CERTIFIED BY BOTH THE PARTNERS DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HOLDI NG THE DEFECT WAS A RECTIFIABLE DEFECT. IN THESE FACTS ARID CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS N OT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT NO PARTNERSHIP DEED EXISTED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS THAT THE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS NOT CERTIFIED BY BOTH THE PARTNERS AND FIL ED / ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE COPY FILED WAS CERTIFIED BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, WE ARE OF - THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DEFECT OF NOT FILIN G COPY OF THE CERTIFIED BY BOTH THE PARTNERS IS A CURABLE DEFECT. OF SECTION 184 OF THE ACT ARE DIRECTORY AND NOT MANDATORY AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BILLIMORA ENGINEE RING MART VS CIT 156 ITR 153 (GUJ). HENCE, WE FIND NO GOOD REASO NS TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE A.O. HAS TREATED T HE ASSESSEE AS FIRM ONLY; AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AND SAL ARY PAID TO THE PARTNERS. HENCE, THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND HENCE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL DECISION, WE HOLD THAT THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND SALARY TO THE PARTNERS IS TO BE ALLOWED SINCE THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS MADE I.T.A.NO.1446 /AHD/2008 5 AVAILABLE TO THE A.O. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS AND IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE CITED BY THE LD. A .R. THAT THIS DEFECT OF NOT FILING COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED WITH RETURN OF INCOME IS A CURABLE DEFECT. IT IS ALSO HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 184 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARE DIRECTORY AND NOT M ANDATORY AS HELD BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BILLIMORA ENGINEERING MART VS CIT AS REPORTED IN 156 ITR 153 (GUJ.). GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. REGARDING GROUND NO.2, THE FACTS ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.24,22,085/- BEING THE AMOUNT PAID TO THREE SU B-CONTRACTORS FOR THE USE OF THEIR TANKERS NO.7357, 4367 AND 4366. THE A .O. FURTHER NOTED THAT THESE THREE VEHICLES WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE NAME O F THE RESPECTIVE SUB- CONTRACTORS ONLY ON 21.03.2005 AND PRIOR TO SUCH TR ANSFER, THESE VEHICLES WERE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FU RTHER NOTED THAT NOC IS ISSUED TO THE RTO RAJKOT ON 12.04.2005 IN RESPECT O F VEHICLE NO.7357 AND FOR THE REMAINING TWO VEHICLES, THE NOC WAS ISS UED TO THE RTO AJMER ON 24.04.2005 IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE NO. 4367 AND ON 25.07.2006 FOR THE VEHICLE NO.4366. THE A.O. FURTHER NOTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF THESE THREE TANK ERS IN THE PRESENT YEAR TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,08,995.22 REGARDING DIESEL, O IL, VEHICLE INSURANCE, RTO PAYMENT, CALIBRATION EXPENSES AND REPAIRING EXP ENSES. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, THE A.O. CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS N O GENUINE SUB-CONTRACT ENTERED INTO AND PERFORMED BY THE SO CALLED SUB-CON TRACTOR AND HENCE, THE PAYMENT OF RS.24,22,085/- ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PAID /PAYABLE IS NOTHING BUT A DEVICE TO REDUCE THE TAX INCIDENCE OF THE ASS ESSEE. HE DISALLOWED THE SAME. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E MATTER IN APPEAL I.T.A.NO.1446 /AHD/2008 6 BEFORE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS AND NOW, THE ASSE SSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. BEFORE US THAT T HERE IS GENUINE SALE AND LEASE BACK TRANSACTION REGARDING VEHICLES IN QU ESTION SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO THESE THREE PERSONS ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 2004 AND THE SALE DEED OF THESE THREE VEHICLES ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 63-65 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON PAGES 53-58 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE THE COPIES OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY THESE SUB-CONTRAC TORS TO THE RESPECTIVE A.O.S IN FORM 13C TO OBTAIN THE CERTIFICATE FOR NOT DEDUCTING TDS AND SUCH CERTIFICATES U/S 197(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WERE ISSUED BY THE A.O. TO THESE SUB-CONTRACTORS ON 23.04.2004 AND HENCE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THIS TRANSACTION OF SALE AND LEASE BACK I S AN AFTERTHOUGHT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THESE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE A.O. OF THESE SUB-CONTRACTORS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO D EDUCT TDS AND HENCE, FOR THIS REASON, NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSE E AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE VEHICLES WERE REGISTERED WITH ONGC AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF THESE VEHICLES AND HIRE CHARGE S WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THESE SUB-CONTRACTORS AND, THEREFORE, I T IS GENUINE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND HENCE, SHOULD BE ALLOWED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF IT IS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE IS JUSTIFIED O F HIRE CHARGES OF RS.24,22,085, MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO ALLOW EXPENSES ON OPERATION OF THESE THREE TANKERS INCLUDING MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR EXPENSE INCURRED ON THESE VEHICLES BY SU B-CONTRACTORS AND THIS PAYMENT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME IN THE HAND S OF SUB-CONTRACTORS AND EXPENSE INCURRED BY THEM SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO T HE ASSESSEE. 9. THE LD. D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. I.T.A.NO.1446 /AHD/2008 7 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IN ADDITION TO THE CLAIMING HIRE CHARGES FOR T HESE THREE VEHICLES OF RS.24,22,085/-, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DEBITED VARIO US EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,08,995.22 IN RESPECT OF THESE THREE VEHICLES AND HENCE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE EXAMINED IN THE LIG HT OF THESE FACTS. IF THESE VEHICLES WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AND WERE T AKEN ON HIRE, BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE THREE PERSONS, THEN THERE IS NO REASON OF DEBITING THESE EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THESE THREE VEHICLE S IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF TAX, DIESEL AN D OIL EXPENSES, VEHICLE INSURANCE, RTO PAYMENT, CALIBRATION EXPENSE AND REP AIRING EXPENSES ETC. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DEBITED ALL THESE EX PENSE IN RESPECT OF THESE VEHICLES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, NO FURTHER DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF HIRING OF THESE TANKERS. BUT WE FIND FORCE IN THIS CONTENTION THAT ALL OPERATING EXPENSES OF THES E THREE TANKERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THERE FORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR A FRESH DECISION. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH TH AT IN ADDITION TO RS.8,08,995.22, ANY OTHER EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ON THE VEHICLES AND THE SAME WERE NOT DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT WERE DEBITED BY THE SO CALLED CONTRACTORS, THAT DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWE D TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH EXPENSES IF THE ASSESSEE CAN SATISFY THE A.O. ABOUT ALLOWABILITY OF SUCH EXPENSES. IN THE HANDS OF THE CONTRACTORS, NE ITHER THIS RECEIPT OF RS.24.22 LACS SHALL BE TAXED NOR ANY DEDUCTION SHOU LD BE ALLOWED FOR EXPENDITURE ALLEGED TO BE INCURRED FOR THESE THREE VEHICLES. THE A.O. SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO T HE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. I.T.A.NO.1446 /AHD/2008 8 11. REGARDING GROUND NO.3, WE FIND THAT SINCE NO TA X WAS DEDUCTIBLE BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED B Y THE A.O. OF THESE SUB- CONTRACTORS U/S 197(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, NO DISALLOWANCE IS JUSTIFIED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BUT SINCE WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE FOR THE REASONS STATED I N THE ABOVE PARA, THIS GROUND IS OF ACADEMIC INTEREST ONLY. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS AL LOWED. 13. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (D. K. TYAGI) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 24/1 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 27/1.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S.30/1 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 31/1 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.31/1 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 312/01/2012 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .