Atul Limited, Ahmedabad V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1755/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2061 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PURTI VACHHARAJANI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Wrong claim
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ITA NO.1755/AHD/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-98) ATUL LTD. ATUL HOUSE G I PATEL MARG AHMEDABAD 380 014 / VS. DY.CIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1) AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCA 2390 M ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS. PURTI VACHHARAJANI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING 13/09/2019 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06 /12/2019 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS)1, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-1 /DCIT CIRCLE- 1(1)(1)/10252/2017-18 DATED 18/05/2018 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 28/03/2000 RELEVAN T TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 1997-98. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ITA NO.1755/AHD/2018 ATUL LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 1997-98 - 2 - (1) THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) H AS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,28,631/-. (2) THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) H AS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED BY NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT AO HAD PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO APPELLANT WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE, ORDER IS VOID AB INIT IO AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. (3) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEN D AND WITHDRAW ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THA T THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO FO R 1,28,631/- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF CHEMICA LS COMPRISING DYES SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, AGROCHEMICALS, BULK DRUGS AND COMMODITY CHEMICALS. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 25,09,41,821.00 ONL Y. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE A CT VIDE ORDER DATED 28 TH OF MARCH 2000 AT 17,67,74,090/- AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES OF VARIOUS CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME INCLUDING THE GUESTHOUSE EXPENSES OF RS.2,99 ,142/- ONLY. SUBSEQUENTLY THE MATTER TRAVELLED UP TO ITAT WHEREI N THE CONFIRMATION OF GUESTHOUSE EXPENSES WAS MADE. ACCORDINGLY, THE A O PROVIDED FRESH ITA NO.1755/AHD/2018 ATUL LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 1997-98 - 3 - OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE CONFIRMATION FOR THE AD DITION MADE BY THE ITAT. 4.1. AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLE D FOR THE DEDUCTION OF GUESTHOUSE EXPENSES WHICH WERE CLAIMED BY IT IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. ACCORDINGLY HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HAD THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE NOT BEEN SELECTED UNDER SCRUTINY, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAV E BEEN DETECTED. ACCORDINGLY THE AO CHARGED THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISH ING THE INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME AND WORKED OUT THE PENALTY OF 1,28,631/- BEING 100% OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. THUS THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LEARN ED CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 2.4. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS SEEN THA T ASSESSEE HAD UNNECESSARILY TRIED TO BRING THE ISSUE AS DISPUTED AND CLAIMED THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE. ALL THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLA NT IN REGARD AND THEIR RATIOS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. IN THE APPELLANT OWN CASE THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE COMPOSITE ORDER BEARING ITA NO.1093/AHD/2002 A ND OTHERS DATED 04/01/2017 CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF GUEST HOUSE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,99,142/-. HENCE, T HE DEPRECIATION ON GUEST HOUSE BUILDING AND OTHER ASSETS MAINTAINED AS WELL AS REPAIRS ON BUILDING AND OTHER ASSETS WERE NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT AND SEVERAL JUDGMENTS. 2.5. APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT HE WAS OF BONAFIDE BELI EF THAT NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S.37(4) ON ESTIMATED BASIS AS 'GUEST HOUSE REPAIR EXPENSE' ITA NO.1755/AHD/2018 ATUL LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 1997-98 - 4 - AND ANY REPAIR EXPENSE IS INDEPENDENTLY ALLOWABLE U /S 30 OF INCOME TAX ACT AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF LEVY OF PENALTY. THE IS SUE IN CASE OF CIT VS. GAEKWAR MILLS LTD (193 ITR 734) WAS RELATED TO DEPR ECIATION NOT ALLOWABLE ON GUEST HOUSE. THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIA TION ON 'GUEST HOUSE ASSESTS' WAS AGREED IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE C IT(A) BY THE APPELLANT. THE 'GUEST HOUSE REPAIR EXPENSE' WHICH HAS BEEN CON FIRMED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT INCLUDES THE UNALLOWABLE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON THE GUEST HOUSE. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S ZOOM COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED 327ITR 510 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961-PENA LTY - FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME -WHETHER SO LONG AS ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCEALED ANY MATERIAL FACT OR ANY FACTUAL INFORMAT ION GIVEN BY HIM HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE INCORRECT, HE WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C), EVEN IF CLAIM M ADE BY HIM IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, PROVIDED THAT HE EITHER SUBST ANTIATES EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM OR EXPLANATION, EVEN IF NOT SUBSTANT IATED, IS FOUND TO BE BONA FIDE - HELD, YES - WHETHER IF ASSESSEE MAKES A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT ONLY INCORRECT IN LAW, BUT IS ALSO WHOLLY WITHOUT A NY BASIS AND EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY HIM FOR MAKING SUCH A CLAIM IS NOT FOUND TO BE BONA FIDE, EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) WO ULD COME INTO PLAY AND ASSESSEE WILL BE LIABLE TO PENALTY - HELD, YES' THE HON'BLE DELHI COURT IN ABOVE CASE HAS ALSO CONS IDERED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LIMITED AND HELD AS UNDER: '18. IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. (SU PRA), THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT O F THE INTEREST CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT WAS DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THOUGH IT WAS LATER RESTORED, BY THE TRIBUNAL, TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS ADMITTED BY THE HIGH COURT. IT WAS, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT TH E TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER CONCEA LED THE INCOME NOR FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF. IN RECORDING THIS FINDING, THE TRIBUNAL FELT THAT IF TWO VIEWS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WERE POSSIBLE, THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY IT COULD NOT B E SAID TO BE FALSE. THIS, HOWEVER, IS NOT THE FACTUAL POSITION IN THE C ASE BEFORE US. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THUS ARE CLEARLY DISTINGU ISHABLE. ITA NO.1755/AHD/2018 ATUL LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 1997-98 - 5 - 19. IT IS TRUE THAT MERE SUBMITTING A CLAIM WHICH IS IN CORRECT IN LAW WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE BONA FIDE. IF THE CLAIM BESIDES BEING I NCORRECT IN LAW IS MALA FIDE, EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1) WOULD CO ME INTO PLAY AND WORK TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE ASSESSEE.:' CONSIDERING THE FACTS DISCUSSED HEREIN ABOVE AND TH E ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT (SUPRA), ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN LE VYING PENALTY OF RS.1,28,631/- U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE PE NALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE ESTIMATED ADDITION WHICH IS VERY SUBJECTIVE/ DEBATABLE. THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PENALTY QUA SAID ADDITION. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH T HE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS CLAIMED GUESTHOUSE EXPENSES AMOUN TING TO 17,62,372/- INCLUDING THE DEPRECIATION OF 3,89,813/- ON SUCH GUESTHOUSE BUILDING AND OTHER ASSETS MAINTAINED THE REIN. THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SUCH GUESTHOUSE EXPENSES HAS SHOWN RECOVERI ES OF 15,63,230/- ITA NO.1755/AHD/2018 ATUL LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 1997-98 - 6 - LEAVING A SHORTFALL OF 1, 99,142/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 7.1. SIMILARLY, THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS ALSO ESTIMATED AN EXPENSE OF 1 LAKH TOWARDS THE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE GUESTHOUSE WHICH AGAIN WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DED UCTION. THE AO HAD TO MAKE THE ESTIMATION OF SUCH EXPENSES AS THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE SAME WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONF IRMED BY THE ITAT. 7.2. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THE AD DITION WERE MADE FOR 2 ITEMS BY THE AO, FIRSTLY THE ADDITION OF 1,99,142/- REPRESENTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEPRECIATION AND SECONDLY ESTIM ATED EXPENSES OF 1,00,000/- FOR THE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF SUCH GUESTHOUSE. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE LEARNED DR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 7.3. THE ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE RELATES TO TH E FACT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY C LAIMING THE GUEST HOUSE EXPENSES INCURRED BY IT. THE WRONG CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE GUEST HOUSE EXPENSES IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN C ANNOT BE EQUATED WITH INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME. IT IS BECAUSE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GUEST HOUSE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN DOUBT, BUT THE SAME WAS WRONGLY CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ITA NO.1755/AHD/2018 ATUL LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 1997-98 - 7 - 7.4. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THERE WAS THE SHORT FALL OF THE RECOVERIES AGAINST THE GUEST HOUSE EXPENSES, THAT TOO ON ACCOUNT OF DE PRECIATION ALLOWANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,99,182.00/- ONLY. HAD THERE BEEN SOME MORE RECOVERIES AGAINST THE GUEST HOUSE EXPENSES, THEN T HERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH EXPENSES. THUS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DELIBERATELY CLAIMED SUCH EXPENSES . 7.5. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RE LIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS LTD REPORTED IN 322 ITR 158 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: A GLANCE OF PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1)( C ) WOULD SUGGEST THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE P ARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE INSTANT C ASE WAS NOT THE CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF THE INCOME. THAT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE EITHER. IT WAS AN ADMITTED POSITION IN THE INSTANT CASE THAT NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INC ORRECT OR INACCURATE. IT WAS NOT AS IF ANY STATEMENT MADE OR ANY DETAIL S UPPLIED WAS FOUND TO BE FACTUALLY INCORRECT. HENCE, AT LEAST, PRIMA FACIE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICU LARS. THE REVENUE ARGUED THAT SUBMITTING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW FO R THE EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF SUCH INCOME. SUCH CANNOT BE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCERNED WORDS. THE WORDS ARE PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESS EE TO THE PENALTY UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISIO N, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, M AKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INA CCURATE PARTICULARS. THEREFORE, IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE CONDITIONS UND ER SECTION 271(1)( C ) EXIST BEFORE THE PENALTY IS IMPOSED. THERE CAN BE N O DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED, BECA USE THAT IS THE ONLY ITA NO.1755/AHD/2018 ATUL LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 1997-98 - 8 - DOCUMENT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTIC ULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, T HE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. THE WORD 'PARTICULARS' MUST MEAN THE DETAILS SUPPLI ED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT A CCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE WAS NO FINDIN G THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN WERE FOUND T O BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE. SUCH NOT BEING THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C ). A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF WI LL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOU NT TO THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS 7.6. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONCE THE ASSE SSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE PARTICULARS OF EXPENSES WHICH WERE CORRECT BUT WRONGLY CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION, DOES NOT ATTRACT THE PENALTY. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE WRONG CLAIM FOR THE GUEST HOUSE EXPENSES. BUT THE WRONG CLAIM DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME. 7.7. SIMILARLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE REPAIR E XPENSES ON ESTIMATED BASIS CANNOT BE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PENALTY AS TH E QUESTIONS FOR CONCEALING AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME DOES NOT ARISE. THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE PENALTY LEVIE D U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW. HENCE, THE ITA NO.1755/AHD/2018 ATUL LTD. VS. DCIT ASS T.YEAR 1997-98 - 9 - GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 6/12/2019 SD/- SD/- (MS. MADHUMITA ROY) (W ASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 6/12/2019 &.., .(.. / T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ( ) / THE CIT(A)-1, AHMEDABAD 5. /01 ((*+ , *+# , ) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 145 6 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2.12.19 ( WORD PROCESSED BY HONBLE AM IN HIS COMPUTER BY DRA GON ) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 2.12.19/5.12.19 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.6.12.19 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 6.12.19 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