The ACIT,GNR Circle, Gandhinagar V. Dena Gujarat Gramin Bank, Gandhinagar

ITA 1839/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 183920514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M M PATEL A R
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD .. , , BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL,VICE PRESIDEN T (AZ) AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1839/AHD/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ) THE ASST.CIT GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR / VS. DENA GUJARAT GRAMIN BANK JILLA PANCHAYAT BHAVAN SECTOR-17 GANDHINAGAR ! '# ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAJD 0596 Q ( !% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &'!% / RESPONDENT ) !%(' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUBHASH BAINS, CIT-DR &'!%)(' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.M. PATEL, A.R. * +) ,# / DATE OF HEARING 23/02/2015 -./0 ) ,# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/ 2 /2015 '/ O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-GANDHINAGAR (CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 18/04/2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2007-08. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- ITA NO.1839/AHD /2011 ACIT VS. DENA GUJARAT GRAMIN BANK ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 2 - 1. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,60,55,461/- MADE ON A CCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR DEPRECIATION. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.C IT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D CIT(APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED T O THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 04/12/2009, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) OBSERVE D THAT IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.3,60,55,467/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISIONS OF DEPREC IATION ON INVESTMENTS. THE AO ISSUED A QUESTIONNAIRE SEEKING EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 03/12 /2009 SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3.2. ON PERUSAL OF SCHEDULE-16 OF THE P&L ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS SEEN THAT NO SUCH PROVISION FOR DEP RECIATION ON INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN EARLIER YEARS. IT IS O NLY IN THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUCH PROVISIONS AND CLAIMED D EPRECIATION ON SUCH INVESTMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS.3,60,55,461/-. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DEDUCTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN CLAIMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING CONSISTENTLY AND REGU LARLY ADOPTED IN PRECEDING YEARS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES RELI ANCE ON THE ABOVE CITATION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ITS CASE. IN T HE CASE OF UNITED COMMERCIAL BANKS (SUPRA), HONBLE APEX COURT HELD S UCH DEPRECIATION ON INVESTMENTS TO BE ALLOWABLE AS THE SAME WAS ITA NO.1839/AHD /2011 ACIT VS. DENA GUJARAT GRAMIN BANK ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 3 - CLAIMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING CONSISTENTLY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED BY THE TAX PAYER IN PAST SEVE RAL YEARS. IN FORM 3CD OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IN COL.12(A), THE AUDITOR P.SINGHVI & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, HAS REMARKED THAT METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK EMPLOYED IN PR EVIOUS YEAR AS NOT APPLICABLE. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, IT IS FO R THE FIRST TIME THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SUCH EXPENSES. AS PER DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH INVESTMENTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAKING INVESTMENTS IN PRECEDING Y EARS ALSO AND NO SUCH PROVISION FOR DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN MADE AN D CLAIMED IN EARLIER YEARS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT IS HELD THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED AT RS.3,60,55,461/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION S OF DEPRECIATION ON INVESTMENT DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOU NT, HAVE NOT BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTI NG CONSISTENTLY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE; AS SUCH THEY ARE NOT ALLOWABLE. THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE ADDED T O THE ASSESSEES INCOME. 2.1. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWE D THE APPEAL; THEREBY THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION DISALLOWED BY THE AO WAS ALLOWED. AGAINST THIS, NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAI NST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.3,60,55,481/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIS ALLOWANCE OF PROVISIONS OF DEPRECIATION. 3.1. THE LD.CIT-DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AN D SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADD ITION. ITA NO.1839/AHD /2011 ACIT VS. DENA GUJARAT GRAMIN BANK ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 4 - 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UNITE D COMMERCIAL BANK VS. CIT REPORTED AT 240 ITR 355 (SC). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING OF THE AO IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. HE DREW OUR ATTENTI ON TOWARDS PARA-3.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN IT IS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT IT IS ONLY IN THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUCH PROVISIONS AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON SUCH INVESTMENTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS OBSERV ATION OF THE LD.AO IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARA-2 .4 OF HIS ORDER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE REASONING O F THE AO JUSTIFYING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY HIM AND THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD AND THE FACTS OF TH E CASE INCLUDING THE ACCOUNTING IN EARLIER YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS . THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL OBSERVATIONS ARE MADE ON THE ISS UE: 1) AS PER SECTION 6 READ WITH SECTION 5(B) AND (C) BA NKING REGULATION ACT AND AS PER THE GUIDELINE ISSUED BY T HE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES IS THE NORMAL BANKING ACTIVITY AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS BANKING STOCK IN TRADE. THE ITA NO.1839/AHD /2011 ACIT VS. DENA GUJARAT GRAMIN BANK ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 5 - FORMAT OF THE BALANCE SHEET HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND BANK HAS TO REPORT THEIR FINANCIAL RESULT IN THAT FORMAT ONLY. AS PER THIS FORMAT THE INVESTMENT IN NON-SLR SECURITIES THOUGH TREATED AS BANKING ASSETS (STOCK IN TRADE) HAS TO BE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS INVESTMENT. 2) THE ABOVE POSITION HAS ALSO BEEN CLARIFIED BY CIRCU LAR NO.665 OF THE CBDT DATED 05-10-1993. THE QUESTION WHETHER A PARTICULAR ITEM OF INVESTME NT IN SECURITIES CONSTITUTES STOCK-IN-TRADE OR A CAPITAL ASSET IS A QUESTION OF FACT. IN FACT, THE BANKS ARE GENERALLY GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA FROM TIME TO TIME WITH REGARD TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF ASSETS AND ALS O THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS FOR INVESTMENTS. THE BOARD HA S, THEREFORE, DECIDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SHOU LD DETERMINE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE AS TO W HETHER ANY PARTICULAR SECURITY CONSTITUTES STOCK-IN-TRADE OR I NVESTMENT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE RE SERVE BANK OF INDIA IN THIS REGARD FORM TIME TO TIME. CBDT HAS FURTHER ISSUED INSTRUCTION FOR THE ASSESSM ENT OF BANKS VIDE ITS INSTRUCTION NO.17/2008 DATED 26.11.2008 (F.NO.228/3/2008 ITA III) POINT NO.VII OF THE S AID INSTRUCTION- AS PER RBI GUIDELINES DATED 16 TH OCTOBER 2000, THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO OF THE BANKS IS REQUIRED TO BE CLASSIFIED UNDER THREE CATEGORIES VIZ. HELD TO MATURITY (HTM), HELD FOR T RADING (HFT) AND AVAILABLE FOR SALE (AFS). INVESTMENTS CL ASSIFIED UNDER HTM CATEGORY NEED NOT BE MARKED TO MARKET AND ARE CARRIED AT ACQUISITION COST UNLESS THESE ARE MORE T HAN THE FACT VALUE, IN WHICH CASE THE PREMIUM SHOULD BE AMORTIZE D OVER THE PERIOD REMAINING TO MATURITY. IN THE CASE OF HFT A ND AFS SECURITIES FORMING STOCK IN TRADE OF THE BANK, THE DEPRECIATION / APPRECIATION IS TO BE AGGREGATED SCRIPT WISE AND ON LY NET DEPRECIATION, IF ANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED FO R IN THE ITA NO.1839/AHD /2011 ACIT VS. DENA GUJARAT GRAMIN BANK ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 6 - ACCOUNTS. THE LATEST GUIDELINES OF THE RBI MAY BE REFERRED TO FOR ALLOWING ANY SUCH CLAIMS. 3) THE BANK IS THE REGIONAL RURAL BANK (RRB). THE DE PRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF SCRIPTS HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE CASE OF NON-SLR SECURITIES. THE RESERVE BANK OF IN DIA HAS VIDE ITS INSTRUCTIONS DATED 4 TH DECEMBER,2000 DIRECTED THAT SHARES, DEBENTURES AND BONDS, MUTUAL FUND UNITS, ET C. REPRESENT NON-SLR SECURITIES. IT HAS FURTHER DIRECTED THE FO LLOWING WITH REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTING OF THESE SECURITIES:- INVESTMENT CLASSIFIED UNDER THIS CATEGORY WILL BE MARKED TO MARKET SCRIP-WISE AT THE YEAR END OR AT MORE FREQUE NT INTERVALS. WHILE THE NET DEPRECIATION UNDER EACH CLASSIFICATION SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AND FULLY PROVI DED FOR , THE NET APPRECIATION UNDER EACH CLASSIFICATION IN R ESPECT OF THESE SECURITIES SHOULD BE IGNORED TO ELABORATE, SE CURITIES UNDER THIS CATEGORY SHALL BE VALUED SCRIPT-WISE AND DEPRECIATION/APPRECIATION SHALL BE AGGREGATE FOR EA CH CLASSIFICATION. NET DEPRECIATION, SHALL BE PROVIDE D FOR AND HELD UNDER A SEPARATE ACCOUNT VIZ. INVESTMENT FLUC TUATION RESERVE ACCOUNT NET APPRECIATION, IF ANY, SHOULD B E IGNORED. NET DEPRECIATION REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED FOR IN ANY ONE CLASSIFICATION SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED ON ACC OUNT OF NET APPRECIATION IN ANY OTHER CLASSIFICATION, THE B OOK VALUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL SECURITIES WOULD NOT UNDERGO ANY CHANGE AFTER THE REVALUATION. THE EXCESS PROVISION TOWARD S INVESTMENT UNDER THIS CATEGORY (NON-SLR INVESTMENT) SHOULD ACCORDINGLY BE APPROPRIATED TO INVESTMENT FLUCTUATI ON RESERVES ACCOUNT INSTEAD OF CAPITAL RESERVE ACCOUNT , BY WAY OF APPROPRIATION IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT . FURTHER THE INVESTMENT FLUCTUATION RESERVES ACCOUNT SHOULD ITA NO.1839/AHD /2011 ACIT VS. DENA GUJARAT GRAMIN BANK ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 7 - BE SHOWN AS A SEPARATE ITEM IN SCHEDULE 2-RESERVE AND SURPLUSES UNDER THE HEAD REVENUE AND OTHER RESERV ES. THE PROVISION REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION UNDER THIS CATEGORY IN ANY YEAR SHOULD BE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND AN EQUIV ALENT AMOUNT (NET OF TAX BENEFIT, IF ANY, AND NET OF CONS EQUENT REDUCTION IN THE TRANSFER TO STATUTORY RESERVE) OR THE BALANCE AVAILABLE IN THE INVESTMENT FLUCTUATION RES ERVE ACCOUNT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN MAINTAINED AND SHOWN AS PER R BI GUIDELINES. THE DEPRECIATION OF ASSETS HAS BEEN CL AIMED ON SECURITIES WHICH HAD BEEN CLASSIFIED AS NON SLR SEC URITIES AND ARE TREATED AS AFS (AVAILABLE FOR SALE). AS PER TH E BOARDS CIRCULAR THE DEPRECIATION IS TO BE AGGREGATED SCRIP T WISE AND NET DEPRECIATION, IF ANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDE D FOR IN THE ACCOUNTS. THIS IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NOT REBUTTED ANY OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION LEGAL AS WELL AS FACTUAL. THE CONTENTION OF THE AO THAT ONLY PROVISION HAS BE EN DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT AND NOT EXPENSES DOES NOT CARRY ANY WEIGHT IN VIEW OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA DIRECTIONS AND CBD T INSTRUCTIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE. IT IS HELD THAT THE CIRCULAR AND THE INSTRUCTION OF THE BOARD AS QUOTED ABOVE ARE SQUARE LY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE, WHERE THE PROVISION FOR DEP RECIATION ON THE AVAILABLE FOR SALE CATEGORY OF SECURITIES (NO N SLR) HAS CORRECTLY BEEN CLAIMED. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWABLE AS PER THE CIRCULAR AND THE INSTRUCTION. FURTHER, THIS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING HAS BEEN FOLLOWE D FROM FIRST YEAR ITSELF BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILAR CLAIM OF DEPR ECIATION IN VALUE OF NON SLR SECURITIES WAS MADE AND ALLOWED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THIS IS A NEW COMPANY AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS SECOND YEAR OF THE ITA NO.1839/AHD /2011 ACIT VS. DENA GUJARAT GRAMIN BANK ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 8 - COMPANY ONLY. THE AO HAS MISUNDERSTOOD THE FACTS W HEN HE SAYS THAT THIS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING HAS NOT BEEN FO LLOWED IN EARLIER YEARS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE SA ME METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IS FOLLOWED AND ALLOWED FROM YEAR TO YEAR, SUCH CLAIM HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE BY THE DIFFEREN T COURTS. THE HONBLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . BANK OF BARODA (2003) 262 ITR 334 HAS HELD THAT DEPRECIATI ON IN VALUE OF INVESTMENT HELD BY BANK WAS ALLOWABLE AS D EDUCTION MORE SO WHEN THE LOSS WAS DEBITED TO P&L A/C WHICH WAS REFLECTED AS PROVISION FOR LIABILITY IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE SHARE AND SECURITIES WERE VALUED AT COST ON THE ASS ET SIDE. SAME PROPOSITION HAS BEEN UPHELD BY KERALA HIGH COU RT IN CASE OF CIT VS. NEDUNGADI BANK LTD. (2003) 130 TAXM AN 93 (KER.). THEREFORE, THE DEPRECIATION IN VALUE CLAIMED IS ALL OWABLE. THE CIRCULAR AND INSTRUCTION OF THE CBDT BEING SQUARELY APPLICABLE, LEAVES NO DOUBT ON THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5.1 FROM THE ABOVE FINDING, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AS SESSEE IS MAINTAINING THE ACCOUNTS AS PER RBI GUIDELINES. THE DEPRECIATI ON HAS BEEN CLAIMED ON SECURITIES WHICH HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS NON SLR SECURITIES AND ARE TREATED AS AFS (AVAILABLE FOR SALE). AS PER THE B OARDS CIRCULAR NO.665 DATED 05/10/1993, THE DEPRECIATION IS TO BE AGGREGA TED SCRIPT-WISE AND NET DEPRECIATION, IF ANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED FO R IN THE ACCOUNTS. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THIS METHOD OF A CCOUNTING HAS BEEN FOLLOWED FROM FIRST YEAR ITSELF BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILAR CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN VALUE OF NON SLR SECURITIES WAS MAD E AND ALLOWED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. THIS FINDING ON FACT IS N OT CONTROVERTED BY THE ITA NO.1839/AHD /2011 ACIT VS. DENA GUJARAT GRAMIN BANK ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 9 - REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE MUMBAI HIGH COUR T RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BANK OF BARODA REPORTED AT (2003) 2 62 ITR 334(MUM.) AND IN THE LIGHT OF CIRCULAR NO.665 DATED 05/10/199 3 ISSUED BY THE CBDT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, GROUND RAISED IN THE REVEN UES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 27 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. ( .. ) ( ) ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( KUL BHARAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/ 02 /2015 4,..* , .*../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !% / THE APPELLANT 2. &'!% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 567 8 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-GANDHINAGAR 5. 9 :&*67 , ,670 , 5 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. : <= + / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ' 9& //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO.1839/AHD /2011 ACIT VS. DENA GUJARAT GRAMIN BANK ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 10 - 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 23.2.15 (DICTATION-PAD 6 - PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..24.2.15 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. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 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