Mrs.Zia Fathima , Mysore V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Mysore

ITA 1677/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3214 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: SHEETHAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1677/BANG /2018 (ASST. YEAR 2 013-14) MRS. ZIA FATHIMA, NO.605, NORTH EAST EXTENSION, 4 TH CROSS, N.R MOHALLA, MYSURU. . . APPELLANT PAN AAGPF9656D. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. SHEETHAL, ADVO CATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PADMAMEENAKSHI DATE OF HEARING : 20-6-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-8-2018 O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), MYSORE DATED 28/2/2018 FOR ASST. YEAR 2013 -14 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UND ER:- 2.1 THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASS T. YEAR 2013-14 ON 30/7/2013 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.8,68,070/- COMP RISING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, OTHER SOURCES AND CAPITAL GAIN S. THE CASE WAS ITA NO.1677/B/18 2 TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS CONCLU DED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT 16/3/2016 WHEREIN THE ASSESSE ES INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.1,73,43,469/-. IN DOING SO , THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) DETERMINED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) ON SALE OF PROPERTY AT RS.1,69,44,423/- AS AGAINST LTCG OF RS. 4,69,024/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, BY DENYING THE ASSESSEE D EDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 54 AND 54F OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,46,75, 000/-TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO. F-2, RAMS I2 SQUA RES 2531/1, AGARA, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE. THE LTCG IS IN RESPEC T OF SALE OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT KESARE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE BEARING NOS: 261/1 AND 354/1 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,76,00,000/- VIDE SALE DEED DATED 18/4/2012. 2.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DT. 16/3/2 016 FOR A.Y. 2013-14, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T(A) MYSORE WHICH WAS DISMISSED VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT. 28/ 2/2016. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CI T(A) MYSORE DT. 28/2/2018 FOR A.Y. 2013-14, HAS FILED THIS APPE AL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN SHE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUN DS. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E- TAX(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND TO THE PRINCIPLES OF N ATURAL JUSTICE FOR HAVING NOT CONSIDERED ALL THE GROUNDS R AISED BY THE APPELLANT AND TO DENY THE BENEFIT U/.,L154F OF THE ACT TO THE APPELLANT WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEP TED THE EXPLANATION OFFERED AND ALSO EVIDENCE FURNISHED ITA NO.1677/B/18 3 ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN FULL. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD LET IN ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS A RESID ENTIAL PROPERTY AND HAVING INVESTED THE CAPITAL GAINS IN A NOTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AND HAVING COMPLIED WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED U/S.54 F OF THE ACT, THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF U /S.54F OF THE ACT AS CLAIMED AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN FULL. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED ALL TH E DETAILS FOR THE REINVESTMENT AND ON MERE FACT THAT THE SALE DEED DID NOT CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF THE EXISTI NG RESIDENCE IN THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS NOT CONCLUSIVE T O HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTIO N U/S.54(L) OF THE ACT WHEN THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISH ED ADEQUATE EVIDENCE INCLUSIVE OF PHOTOGRAPHS TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN THE PROPERTY SOLD AND ACCORDINGLY HE OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM IN F ULL. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF EXEM PTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT SINCE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HA D ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SATISFIED ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED U/S.54F OF TH E ACT FOR ITA NO.1677/B/18 4 THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE EXEMPTION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 6. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) OUGHT TO HAVE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO JUSTIFY HER CLAIM U /S.54F OF THE ACT WHEN HE PROPOSED TO DENY THE EXEMPTION U /S.54 OF THE ACT AND HAVING FAILED TO DO SO, THE APPELLAT E ORDER IS OPPOSED TO LAW IN THE VIOLATIVE OF THE PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ACCORDINGLY LIABLE TO BE SET AS IDE. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ADDITION IS EXCESSIVE, AR BITRARY AND UNREASONABLE AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED IN TOTO. 8. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTEREST U/S.234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 9. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE APPELLANT PRAYS T HAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD OF BOTH THE LD AR FOR T HE ASSESSEE AND THE LD DR WERE HEARD IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES R AISED IN THIS APPEAL. 3.2.1 THE GROUNDS RAISED AT S.NO 1 TO 6 (SUPRA) BASICALLY PERTAIN TO THE DENIAL OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U /S 54/54F OF THE ACT BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHILE COMPUTING THE LTCG O N SALE OF PROPERTY. ITA NO.1677/B/18 5 3.2.2 WE WILL FIRST DEAL WITH THE FACTS OF THE MATT ER IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. T HE FACTS AS EMERGE FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION, THE ASSESSEE VIDE SALE DEED DT. 18/4/2012 SOLD PROPERTY BEARING NO. 261/1 AND 354/1 SITUATED AT KESAARE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MY SORE TO MOUNT CARMEL EDUCATION SOCIETY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,76,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED THE LTCG ARISING FROM THIS TR ANSACTION AT RS.1,51,44,024/- AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.1,46,7 5,000/- U/S 54 OF THE ACT TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF A HOUSE P ROPERTY AT FLAT NO.F-2, RAMS 12, SQUARES, 2531/1, AGARA, HSR LAYOUT , BANGALORE AND THEREBY OFFERED TAXABLE LTCG OF RS.4 ,69,024/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. THE AO EXAMINED THE ISSUE O F LTCG AND THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. A FTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE SE C. 54 OF THE ACT, THE AO DENIED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U /S 54 OF THE ACT BECAUSE AS PER THE PROVISIONS THEREOF, DEDUCTION IS AVAILABLE TO AN INDIVIDUAL FROM TRANSFER OF A LONG TERM CAPITAL ASS ET BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE; WHEREAS AS PER THE SALE DEED DAT ED 18/4/2012 THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DESCRIBED AS DRY LAND AND NOT AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. 3.2.3 ON APPEAL, THE LD CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESS EES APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE AND UPHELD THE AOS CONTENTION HOLDING A S UNDER AT PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER:- 3. THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO DERIVED INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ALSO INCOME BY WAY OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE APPELLANT FI LED A ITA NO.1677/B/18 6 RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y.2013-14 ON 30/07/2013, ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8,68,070/-. ON SCRUBNY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE INCOME OF THE APPE LLANT AT RSJ,73,43,469/-, VIDE AN ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE AC T, DATED 16/03/2016, WHICH IS DISPUTED IN THIS APPEAL. AS PE R THE DETAILS AVAILABLE IN FORM 35, THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON TIME. FOR THE APPELLATE HEARING, THE APPELLANT APPEARED A ND WAS HEARD. AFTER DULY CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE APPE LLANT, THE APPEAL IS DECIDED ON MERITS AS PER LAW, ON THE BASI S OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, AS FOLLOWS: THE 1ST, 6TH AND THE 7TH GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THE REFORE, ARE NOT SEPARATELY ADJUDICATED. THE 2ND, 3RD, 4TH A ND THE 5TH GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE TAKEN WITH REGARD THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,46,75,000/- AS DEDUCTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND THEREFO RE, THE 2ND, 3RD, 4TH AND THE 5TH GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE TAK EN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION. THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE TRANSFER OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY RESULTING IN LONGTERM CAPI TAL GAINS ARE STATED AT PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, AS FOLLOWS: '3. DURING THE F.Y.2012-13 RELEVANT TO THE YEAR UND ER ASSESSMENT LE, 2013-14, THE ASSESSEE VIDE ABSOLUTE SALE DEED, DT.18.04.2012, SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AT KESARE VILJAGE,,KASABA HOBLI MYSORE BEARING NOS. 261/1 AND 354/1 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS, 1,76,00,000/-. AFT ER CONSIDERING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION, AND EXPENS ES ITA NO.1677/B/18 7 INCURRED FOR TRANSFER, THE ASSESSEE ARRIVED AT CAPI TAL GAIN OF RS.1,51,44,024/- AND OUT OF THE SAME, HAS CLAIMED D EDUCTION U/S.54 TOWARDS INVESTMENT OF RS. 1,46,75,000/- MADE FOR PURCHASE OF A HOUSE PROPERTY AT FLAT NO. F-2, RAMS 12 SQUARES, SITUATED AT 2531/1, AGARA, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE, THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ARRIVED AT THE TA XABLE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.4,69,02+/-.' THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DENIED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 54 OF THE ACT BECAUSE, AS PER THE SALE DEED 18/04/2012, THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS DESCRIB ED AS 'DRY LAND' AND NOT AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. DEDUCTIO N U/S,54 IS AVAILABLE TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HUF FROM SUCH CAPIT AL GAINS ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITAL AS SET BEING BUILDINGS OR LANDS APPURTENANT THERETO AND BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS, A COPY OF THE AFORESAID SALE DEED DATE D 18/04/2012 FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT WAS EXAMINED AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID SALE DEED DATED 18/04/2012 DID NOT MENTION ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON WHICH THE COST INFLATION INDEX WAS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLA NT. THEREFORE, ON THE ADMITTED FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECOR D, IT IS HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/ S.54 OF THE ACT IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THEREFORE, THE 2ND, 3RD, H AND THE 5TH GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED ON FACTS, A S PER LAW. 3.2.3 BEFORE US ALSO THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REI TERATED THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE ASSESSEES ITA NO.1677/B/18 8 CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. ON PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 54 OF THE ACT, DEDUCTION THEREUNDER IS AVAILABL E TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR HUF FROM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON THE TRANSFER O F A LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET, BEING BUILDINGS AND LAND APARTMENT THERETO AND BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE RECITAL S IN THE SALE DEED DATED 18/4/2012 DRAWN UP FOR SALE OF THE SAID PROPE RTY, THE SAID PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED AS DRY LAND AND NOT A RESID ENTIAL HOUSE AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE AUTHORITIES AND WITH WHICH FACTUAL FINDING, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT. ALL THE AVERMENTS CANVASSED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THROUGH THE PHOTOGRAPHS, AFFIDAVITS, ETC. ARE ALL S ELF SERVING DOCUMENTS NOT BACKED BY ANY FACTUAL CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WH ATSOEVER AND WE THEREFORE FIND NO MERIT THEREIN. IN THIS FACTUAL MA TRIX OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW AND UPHOLD THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSESSE E IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 54 OF THE ACT AS THE SAID CAP ITAL ASSET SOLD WAS NOT A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BUT ONLY DRY LAND AS DESC RIBED IN THE RECITALS IN THE SALE DEED THEREOF DT. 18/4/2012. WITH DUE R ESPECT, THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED TO WOULD NOT COME TO THE AS SESSES RESCUE AS THEY ARE RENDERED ON DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS. CONSE QUENTLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN RESPECT OF HER CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT ARE DISMISSED. 4.1 IN THE GROUNDS AT S NO: 1 TO 6 (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE A ALTERNATE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, AT PARA 9 THEREOF , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE AN ALTERNATE CLAIM VIDE LETTER DT. 29 /2/2016 THAT IF HER CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT IS DENIED, IN THE ALTERNATE SHE ITA NO.1677/B/18 9 SHOULD BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE AO REJECTED ASSESSEES ALTERNATE CLAIM CITING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD (284 ITR 323) (SC) THAT THE ASSESSEES ALTERNATE CLAIM CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED WI THOUT FILING OF A REVISED RETURN IN THAT REGARD. THE HONBLE APEX COU RT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE DE CISION WAS RESTRICTED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHERWISE THAN BY WAY OF A REVISED RETURN , BUT THIS DOES NOT PLACE ANY FETTERS ON OR IMPINGE ON THE POWERS OF TH E APPELLATE TRIBUNAL U/S 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS (30 6 ITR 42) (DELHI) HAS HELD THAT APPELLATE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT W ERE FREE TO CONSIDER A CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AND THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR FILING A REV ISED RETURN OF INCOME AS LAID OUT BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD (SUPRA) IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN A CLAIM I S MADE CONTRARY TO THE RETURN OF INCOME. 4.2 IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IN THE LIGHT OF THE RAT ING LAID DOWN, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF G OETZE (INDIA) LTD., (SUPRA) DOES NOT PLACE FETTERS ON APPELLATE AUTHORI TIES TO ENTERTAIN FRESH CLAIM PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE ON ISSUES WHI CH ARE PART OF RECORD AND ARE MATERIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSING THE C ORRECT TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE ARE THEREFO RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES ALTERNATE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 F OF THE ACT, ADMITTEDLY PREFERRED BEFORE THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE LETTER DT. 29/2/2016 AS RECORDED I N PARA 9 THEREOF, IS ITA NO.1677/B/18 10 TO BE ADMIT ED FOR CONSIDERATION AND ADJUDICATION, IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, S INCE THE ALTERNATE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN EXAMI NED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE RESTORE THIS MATTER TO THE FI LE OF THE AO FOR EXAMINATION AND ADJUDICATION THEREON AFTER AFFORDIN G THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND TO FILE DET AILS/SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD WHICH SHALL BE DULY CONSIDERED BY THE A O, BEFORE DECIDING THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE HOLD AND DIRE CT ACCORDINGLY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF HER CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASST. Y EAR 2013-14 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH AUGUST, 2018 . (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (JASON P BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER BANGALORE DATED : 14/8/2018 VMS COPY TO :1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGAL ORE. ITA NO.1677/B/18 11 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR. P.S... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WE BSITE.. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT.. 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER. ..