Shyam Sundar Possar (HUF), Sambalpur V. ITO, Sambalpur

ITA 153/CTK/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 65159 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , H ONBLE SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER SL. NO. ITA NO. APPELLANT RESPONDENT A.Y. 1 ) 153/CTK/2012 154/CTK/2012 SHYAM SUNDAR PODDAR (HUF),SAMBALPUR. PAN: AAGHS 2861 F ITO, WARD 2(1),SAMBALPUR 1998 - 99 1999 - 00 2 ) 155/CTK/2012 RAM DULAR GUPTA (HUF),SAMB ALPUR PAN: AAHHR 8874 E - DO - 1998 - 99 3 ) 156/CTK/2012 RAJESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,SAMBALPUR PAN: AATPA 4146 N - DO - 1999 - 00 4 ) 157/CTK/2012 RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, SAMBALPUR. PAN: AATPA 4148 C - DO - 1999 - 00 5 ) 158/CTK/2012 MANJU DEVI AGRAWAL, SAMBALPUR. PAN: ABRPA 6799 A - DO - 1999 - 00 6 ) 160/CTK/2012 RAM GOBIND PODDAR (HUF), SAMBALPUR PAN: AAGHR 8232 M - DO - 1998 - 99 FOR THE ASSESSEE : SHRI P.R.MOHANTY/ M.L.JHUNHUNWALA, ARS FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI S.C.MOHANTY, DR / DATE OF HEARING: 07.11.2012 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.11.2012 / ORDER P E R B E N C H . ISSUE AS WELL AS FACTS BEING COMMON, ALL THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEAR S NOTED AGAINST EACH IN THE CAUSE - TITLE, WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE ORDER S OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ORDER S OF THE ITA NOS.153,154,155,156,157,158 AND 160/CTK/ 2012 (GROUP CASES) 2 ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING THEIR PETITI ONS U/S.154 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961 FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.143(3)/254 , WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALES OF CUT AND POLISHED DIAMONDS BY TAKING THE INITIAL COST OF RA W & UNCUT DIAMONDS AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR VDIS PURPOSE BY MISINTERPRETING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH, CUTTACK AT KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL LOKCHANDANI V. ITO IN I.T.A.NO.555/CTK/2002 DT.17.11.2006, WHEREIN, THE ITAT, SPECIAL BENC H HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RECOMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN AFTER CONSIDERING THE VALUATION REPORT OF ROUGH DIAMONDS AS BASIS FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RAW AND UNCUT DIAMOND AS ON 1.4.1981, WHICH ORDER REQUIRED TO HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEES, AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE, THE ASSESSE ES HAVE FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL LOKCHANDANI V. ITO (SUPRA) . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH IN THE SAID CASE, IS AS FOLLOWS : 21. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTUAL/LEGAL POSITION IN OUR O PINION, IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS POINT IS SET ASIDE AND MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF A.O. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE VALUATION REPORT OF RAW AND UNCUT DIAMOND BEFORE THE A.O. THE REAFTER THE A.O. WILL RE - COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN AFTER CONSIDERING SUCH VALUATION REPORT AS BASIS FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RAW AND UNCUT DIAMOND AS ON 1.4.1981. THE A.O. ITA NOS.153,154,155,156,157,158 AND 160/CTK/ 2012 (GROUP CASES) 3 WILL ALLOW ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO TH IS ORDER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IS VERY CLEAR THAT SUCH A DIRECTION WAS MADE AS PER THE SUGGESTION OF THE DEPARTMENT ONLY AS PER THE OBSERVATION MADE IN PARAGRAPH 20 OF THE SAID ORDER DT.17.11.2006. THEREFORE, AS PER THAT DIRECTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEES AS THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RAW AND UNCUT DIAMOND AS ON 1.4.81. THE ASSESSEES HAVE M ADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE VALUATION REPORT OF RAW AND UNCUT DIAMONDS AS ON 1.4.1981 , BUT WITHOUT TAKING THE SAME AS THE BASIS FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS ON ITS OWN INTERPRETATION OF FACTS WHICH IN FACT HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL LALCHANDANI (SUPRA). THUS, THERE BEING NON - COMPLIANCE OF THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEES FILED PETITIONS U/S.154 BEFO RE HIM FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER BY FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED SUCH ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CIRCUMVENTED THE DIRECTION OF I.T.A.T. CUTTACK BENCH AS WELL AS THAT OF THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH OF I.T.A.T. HE WAS NOT EXPECTED TO SIT OVER THE JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUES ALREADY ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT,CUTTACK AS WELL AS THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE SAID ORDERS HAVING BECOME FINAL AND BINDING ON THE PARTIES THERETO, THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE NO ITA NOS.153,154,155,156,157,158 AND 160/CTK/ 2012 (GROUP CASES) 4 OTHER ALTERNATIVE THEN TO FOLLOW THE SAME. CONTRA RY TO THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASES HAVE AGAIN ADJUDICATED THE VERY SAME ISSUES THOSE WERE CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT, CUTTACK AS WELL AS THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL., AND HAVE PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S.143(3)/254 . THEREFORE, SU CH ORDERS ARE NOT AT ALL SUSTAINABLE FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY AND REQUIRE TO BE SET ASIDE. IN A WAY THAT ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESULTED IN VIOLATION OF THE NORMS OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AND IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE VOID AS PER THE PRINCIPLES DECIDED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ORISSA CERAMIC SALES VS. I.T.O. AND ANOTHER,(1984) 145 ITR 464(ORI). SIMILAR OPINION WAS EXPRESSED BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F OM PRAKASH TRIVEDI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (2006) 287 ITR 11 (ALL). IT IS AN ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE DEMANDS THAT AUTHORITIES SUBORDINATE TO THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD ACCEPT THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS BINDING. THIS PR OPOSITION IS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KHALID AUTOMOBILES VS. UNION OF INDIA (1995) 4 SCC (SUPPL.) 65, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS ARE BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY . HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WAS OF THE SAME VIEW AS PER THE DICTUM RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SREE RAJENDRA MILLS LTD. VS. JOINT CTO, 28 STC 483 (MAD) AND IN THE CASE OF SENTHIL RAJA METAL VS. CTO, 79 STC 38 (MAD). THESE PRINCIPLES WERE ALSO UPHELD BY THE HO NBLE APEX COURT IN THE DECISION RENDERED IN UNION OF INDIA VS. KAMALAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. AIR 1992 SC 711. FROM THESE DICTUMS , IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES HAVE TO UNRESERVEDLY FOLLOW THE ORDERS OF THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES . HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT HAS ALSO EXPRESSED SAME VIEW IN THE CASE OF AGRAWAL WAREHOUSING AND LEASING LTD. VS. CIT (2002) 257 ITR 235 (MP), WHEREIN IT ITA NOS.153,154,155,156,157,158 AND 160/CTK/ 2012 (GROUP CASES) 5 WAS HELD THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE BINDING ON ALL TAX AUTHORITIES FUNCTIONING UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS IN THE PRESENT CASE WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN ITA NOS.203 TO 223/CTK/201 1 IN THE CASES OF PUTTA SURYA RAO & OTHERS V. ITO (GROUP CASES) VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DT.27.5.2011 FOLLOWED IN OTHER GROUP CASES IN ITA NO.273 TO 288/CTK/2011 VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DT.30.6.2011 IN THE CASE OF SMT.ASHA SONI & OTHERS V. ITO, (COPIES OF W HICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD), THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO ADOPT THE VALUE AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT STATING THEREIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RAW AND UNCUT DIAMOND AS O N 1.4.1981 FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEES PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND RECOMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASES OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT TO IT. BUT HAVING NOT DONE SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMMITTED A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD , A MISTAKE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 154 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT NOT TO HAVE REJECTED THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES U/S.154 SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDERS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE WHEN SPECIFICALLY THE ORDERS OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) WERE BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE AND FOR THAT MATTER HE SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECTIFY THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AS PRAYED FOR BY THE ASSESSEES IN THEIR 154 PETITIONS. ITA NOS.153,154,155,156,157,158 AND 160/CTK/ 2012 (GROUP CASES) 6 5. THE LEARNED CIT - DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, VEHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONTENDING INTER ALIA THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER FOR ARRIVING AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE DIAMONDS AS ON 1.4.1981 BUT IT WAS NEVER DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE VALUE GIVEN BY THE REGISTERED VALUER IN HIS REPORT. THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES ARE WELL WITHIN THEIR RIGHT IN CONSIDERING THE VALUATION REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE DIAMONDS IN QUESTION. IN THAT WAY, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY MISTAKE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 154 AND AS SUCH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES U/S.154 NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE TRIBUNAL WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL LOKCHANDANI V. ITO IN ITA NO.555/CTK/2002 DT.17.11.2006. THE SPECIAL BENCH HAS CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED IN PARAGRAPH 21 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE TO RECOMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN AFTER CONSIDERING THE VALUATION REPORT AS BASIS FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RAW AND UNCUT DIAMOND AS ON 1.4.1981. PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL BUT RE COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN AGAIN ON ITS OWN FINDING OF FACTS PROPORTIONATELY AGAINST THE VERY DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH FACT HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT WAS NOT TO BE ITA NOS.153,154,155,156,157,158 AND 160/CTK/ 2012 (GROUP CASES) 7 DISTURBED . THIS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUPERIMPOSED HIS JUDGMENT/OPINION ON IM PORTING NEW FACTS ARITHMETICALLY AND NOT FOLLOWED THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREBY HE WAS ONLY TO TAKE THE VALUATION REPORT FROM THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE RAW AND UNCUT DIAMONDS AFTER CONSIDERING SUCH VALUATION REPORT AS BASIS FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RAW AND UNCUT DIAMOND AS ON 1.4.1981 AND COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS THAT IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES . THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 4 ABOVE INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN OTHER GROUP CASES , THERE BEING CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE DIRECTION OF THE TRI BUNAL BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASES, THE ASSESSME NT ORDERS MUST BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS, WH ICH GIVE RISE TO THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION U/S.154. IN SUCH VIEW OF THE MATTER, WHEN THE ASSESSEES MOVED APPLICATIONS U/S.154 FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE SAME. THE LEARNE D CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THIS VITAL ASPECT OF THE CASE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES U/S.154. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY AND HENCE, THEY ARE HEREBY SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO RECTIFY THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED IN THE CASE OF RESP ECTIVE ASSESSEES BY ADOPT ING THE VALUE AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT STATING THEREIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RAW AND UNCUT DIAMOND AS ON 1.4.1981 FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND RECOMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE ITA NOS.153,154,155,156,157,158 AND 160/CTK/ 2012 (GROUP CASES) 8 ASSESSEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL EXTEND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEES. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. S D/ - S D/ - ( . . . ) , ( K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( ) DATE: 09.11.2012 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . / THE APPELLANT : 1 ) SHYAM SUNDAR PODDAR (HUF) ,SAMBALPUR. PAN: AAGHS 2861 F 2 ) RAM DULAR GUPTA (HUF) ,SAMBALPUR PAN: AAHHR 8874 E 3 ) RAJESH KUMAR AGRAWAL ,SAMBALPUR PAN: AATPA 4 146 N 4 ) RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL , SAMBALPUR. PAN: AATPA 4148 C 5 ) MANJU DEVI AGRAWAL , SAMBALPUR. PAN: ABRPA 6799 A 6 ) RAM GOBIND PODDAR (HUF), SAMBALPUR PAN: AAGHR 8232 M 2 / THE RESPONDENT: ITO, WARD 2(1), SAMBALPUR. 3 . / TH E CIT, 4 . ( )/ THE CIT(A), 5 . / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, APP ENDIX XVII SEAL TO BE AFFIXED ON THE ORDER SHEET BY THE SR. P.S./P.S. AFTER DICTATION IS GIVEN 1. DATE OF DICTATION 07.11.2012 . 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER 08.11.2012 OTHER MEMBER . 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 DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S . 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 09.11.2012 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................ 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER .. ( ), (H.K.PADHEE), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY.