The ITO, Ward-8(1), Ahmedabad V. Shri Ajay M.Parikh, Ahmedabad

ITA 2520/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 252020514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJNISH VOHRA
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHIR A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2520/AHD/2009 ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99) THE ITO WARD-8(1) AHMEDABAD / VS. AJAY M.PARIKH LOCAL ADD: 1309 KANJI DIWANI-NO- KHANCHO RAJA MEHTAS POLE, KALUPUR AHMEDABAD-380 001 ! ./'# ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABPP 0277 D ( $ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( %&$ / RESPONDENT ) $ ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJNISH VOHRA, SR.D.R. %&$ ( ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR, SR.ADV. WITH MS.URVASHI SHODHAN )* ( +,! / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 4/7/2012 -. ( +,! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 9/8/2012 / / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD DATED 19/06/2009 PASSED FO R A.Y.1998-99. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LD.CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF RS.3,00,000 /- AS EXPENSES WHILE COMPUTING NET TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN. 2. THE LD.CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ACCEPT THE VALUE OF FLAT AS ON 01/04/1981, AS ITA NO. 2520/AHD/200 9 ITO VS. AJAY M.PARIKH ASST.YEAR 1998-99 - 2 - DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO ACCEPT THE COMPU TATION OF CAPITAL GAIN AS RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE WAS SELEC TED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT , 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) THEREBY THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT RS.1,08,52,718/-. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMEN T, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3 LACS CLAIMED ON A CCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF THE FLAT AND ALSO MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE V ALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). A FTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 3. THE LD.SR.DR MR.RAJNISH VOHRA SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS AS THE AMOUNT OF RS.3 LACS CLAIMED BY THE TRANSFER EXPENDITURE WAS NEITHER IN THE FORM OF STAMP-DUTY NOR FOR BETTERMENT CHARGE WHICH CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE CO ST OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.ARS (MR.S.N.SOPARKAR AND MS. URVASHI SHODHAN) HAVE APPEARED AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED AND IN THIS REGARD PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT(S) OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MATHURDAS MANGALDAS PAREKH VS. CIT (1980) 18 CTR 39 0 (GUJ.) AND OF MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHAKUNTALA LA KANTILAL (1991) 190 ITR 56 (BOM.). ITA NO. 2520/AHD/200 9 ITO VS. AJAY M.PARIKH ASST.YEAR 1998-99 - 3 - 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A.R. CAREFULLY. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PAID RS.3 LAKHS TO MIST RY PARK CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY AS CONTRIBUTION TO REPAIR FUND AS PER RESOLUTION OF SOCIETY DATED 7-8-1995. BUT FOR THIS PAYMENT AS CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT THE SOCIETY WOULD NOT HA VE GIVEN NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE TO THE APPELLANT TO TRANSFER THE FLAT. IT IS LIKE BETTERMENT CHARGE OR COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND IS A D IRECT EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EFFECTING TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY. AS PER THE DECISION OF MUMBAI HIGH COURT CITED BY THE A.R. , EXPRESSION IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER USED IN SECTION 48 IS WIDER IN MEANING AND AS PER THE DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COU RT BETTERMENT CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO MUNICIPAL CORPORATI ON ARE TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND RELYING ON THE RATIO OF THE CASES C ITED, I DIRECT THE A.O. TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF RS.3 LAKHS AS EXPENSES W HILE COMPUTING THE NET TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN. 5.1. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHAKUNTALA KANTILAL(SUPRA), THE HON'BLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT, QUOTE THE LEGISLATURE, WHILE USING THE EXPRESSION 'FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION'; IN OUR VIEW, HAS CONTEMPLATED BOTH ADDITIONS TO AS WELL AS DEDUCTION S FROM THE APPARENT VALUE. WHAT IT MEANS IS THE REAL AND EFFECTIVE CONS IDERATION. THAT APART, SO FAR AS CL. (I) OF S. 48 IS CONCERNED, WE FIND TH AT THE EXPRESSION USED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM IS WIDER THAN THE EXP RESSION 'FOR THE TRANSFER'. THE EXPRESSION USED IS 'THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER'. THE EXPRESSION 'IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER' IS, IN OUR VIEW, CER TAINLY WIDER THAN THE EXPRESSION 'FOR THE TRANSFER'. HERE AGAIN, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT ANY ITA NO. 2520/AHD/200 9 ITO VS. AJAY M.PARIKH ASST.YEAR 1998-99 - 4 - AMOUNT THE PAYMENT OF WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO EFFECT THE TRANSFER WILL BE AN EXPENDITURE COVERED BY THIS CLA USE. IN OTHER WORDS, IF, WITHOUT REMOVING ANY ENCUMBRANCE INCLUDING THE ENCU MBRANCE OF THE TYPE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, SALE OR TRANSFER COULD NOT BE EFFECTED, THE AMOUNT PAID FOR REMOVING THAT ENCUMBRANCE WILL FALL UNDER CL. (I). ACCORDINGLY, WE AGREE WITH THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE SA LE CONSIDERATION REQUIRES TO BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATIO N. THE FIRST QUESTION IS, THEREFORE, ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. UNQUOTE. 5.2. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRA NSFER OF THE FLAT COULD BE EFFECTIVE ONLY AFTER OBTAINING NO OBJECTION CE RTIFICATE FROM THE CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY AND WITHOUT NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE, THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE EFFECTED/TRAN SFERRED. WE FIND THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL COURT IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE IN HAND AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY APPLIED THE SAME. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WHICH IS CONFIRMED. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS HE REBY DISMISSED. 6. THE NEXT GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAIN ST THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE VALUE AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND COMPUT ATION OF CAPITAL GAIN THEREOF. 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING THE VAL UE AS ASSESSED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER. ITA NO. 2520/AHD/200 9 ITO VS. AJAY M.PARIKH ASST.YEAR 1998-99 - 5 - 8. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRES ENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER AS H E HAD ALREADY OBTAINED SALE-INSTANCES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS APPROVED BY VAL UER OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF M.V.SHAH OL, ANANT MILLS LTD. VS. V.J.MATAIN & AMR REPORTED AT (1994) 117 CTR 170 (GUJ.) AND DECISION OF HON'BLE C O-ORDINATE BENCH (ITAT COCHIN) IN THE CASE OF MRS. SOSAMMA PAULOSE V S. JT.CIT REPORTED AT (2003) 79 TTJ 573 (COCH). WE FIND THAT THE LEAR NED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AS PER FINDINGS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH NOS.3.2 & 3.3 OF HIS ORDER IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- 3.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A.R. CAREFULLY. THE APPELLANT HAS ADOPTED T HE FIGURE SUPPORTED BY A VALUATION REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUE R JP THAKKAR WHO IN HIS REPORT IN COLUMN 38 HAS COMMENTED ON INS TANCES OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN THE LOCALITY BY SAYING THA T GENERALLY FLATS WERE SOLD AT RS.1800/- TO RS.2200/- PR SQ.FT. IN HIS LOCALITY. THE REGD. VALUER HAS ALSO COMMENTED THAT THE FLAT W AS IN A WELL MAINTAINED BUILDING AND WESTERLY FACING AND AIRY FL AT WITH A PANORAMIC SEA VIEW FROM THE MAJOR LIVING AREA AND F REE FROM TRAFFIC NOISE THROUGH OUT THE DAY AND IT WAS HAVING CAR PARKING SPACE ALLOTTED BY THE SOCIETY. HE HAS VALUED THE F LAT ADMEASURING 1500 SQ.FT. @ RS.2000/- PER SQ.FT. AT RS.30,01,920/ - AS ON 1-4-1981. THE A.O. REFERRED TO VALUATION CELL OF THE DEPARTME NT U/S.55A OF TE I.T.ACT WHO VALUED THE SAME AT RS.14.43 LAKHS AS ON 10-401981 AFTER CALLING FOR OBJECTIONS FROM THE APPELLANT AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME. IT IS SEEN THAT THE FLAT OF THE APPELLANT IS SEA ITA NO. 2520/AHD/200 9 ITO VS. AJAY M.PARIKH ASST.YEAR 1998-99 - 6 - FACING AND IS AIRY. THE APPELLANT HAD RAISED OBJEC TIONS BEFORE THE DVO SAYING THAT COMPARABLE INSTANCES ADOPTED BY THE DVO ARE NOT EXACTLY COMPARABLE WITH THE FLAT OF THE APPELLA NT AND THE SAID INSTANCES ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF TRUE FAIR MARKE T VALUE OF THE POSH FLAT OWNED BY THE APPELLANT. THE DVO HAS ADOP TED RS.925/- PER SQ.FT. FOR VALUING THE FMV AS ON 1-4-1981. 3.3. WHEN THE A.R. WAS ASKED TO GIVE SUPPORTING EVI DENCE IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM THAT THE RATE OF RS.2,000/- PER SQ .FT. BE ADOPTED FOR DETERMINING FMV OF THE FLAT AS ON 1-4-1981, THE A.R . SUBMITTED EXTRACT OF BOOK INDIAN VALUERS DIRECTORY AD REFER ENCE BOOK WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED THAT MARKET VALUE AS ON 1-4 -1981 OF FLATS AT BHULABHAI DESAI ROAD WITHOUT LIFTS WAS RS.1600/- PE R SQ.FT. AS THE FLAT OF THE APPELLANT WAS IN A BUILDING WITH LIFT A ND IT WAS AIRY AND SEA FACING AND CONSIDERING THE LOCATIONAL ADVANTAGE S AND THE FACILITIES AVAILABLE, THE VALUE ADOPTED OF RS.2,000 /- PER SQ.FT. BY THE REGISTERED VALUER APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE VALUE. HENCE THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT SEEMS TO BE REASONBLE. A S PER THE DECISION OF ITAT KOLKATA BENCH IN THE CASE OF NEVIL LE DE NORANHA V/S. ACIT REPORTED IN 115 TTJ 390 (KOL) WHEN THE FA IR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1-4-1981 SHOWN BY THE REGISTERED VALUER WAS EXAGGERATED, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A IN THE MATTE R OF MAKING REFERENCE TO DVO WERE NOT SATISFIED. SIMILAR VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN HELD IN THE CASE OF HIABEN JAYANTIAL SHAH V. ITO RE PORT IN 310 ITR 31 (GUJ) WHEREIN THE HEADNOTES READ AS UNDER; CAPITAL GAINSCOMPUTATIONREFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICERVALUE ESTIMATED BY VALUATION OFFICER LESS T HAN FAIR MARKET VALUE SHOWN BY ASSESSEE AS ON 1-4-1981 EST IMATE BY REGISTERED VALUER REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 55A NOT VALIDREFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER CAN BE MADE ON LY AFTER ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDS OPINION THAT VALUE HAD BEEN UNDERESTIMATED BY ASSESSEEREFERENCE BEFORE FILING OF RETURN BY ASSESSEE--NOT VALIDINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, S.55A. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE RATIO OF THE AB OVE CITED CASES, I DIRECT THE A.O. TO ACCEPT THE VALUE OF FLAT AS ON 1-4-1981 AS ITA NO. 2520/AHD/200 9 ITO VS. AJAY M.PARIKH ASST.YEAR 1998-99 - 7 - DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO ACCEPT THE COMPU TATION OF CAPITAL GAIN AS RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT. 9.1. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS RELI ED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT PRON OUNCED IN THE CASE OF HIABEN JAYANTILAL SHAH VS. ITO REPORTED AT (2009 ) 310 ITR 31 (GUJ.), WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 14. THEREFORE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE AO HAD, AT NO POINT OF TIME, FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, IN SUBSTITUTION OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE WAS REQUIRED TO BE DISTURBED BECAUSE PRESCRIBED PARAMETERS WERE FULFILLED. IN FACT, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY TH E ONLY GROUND ON WHICH REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER W AS THAT THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON THE DATE OF TH E EXECUTION AND REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED WAS LOWER BY MORE THA N 25 PER CENT. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT WHICH PERMITS THE AO TO DISTURB THE SALE CONSIDERATION, AT LEAST S. 55A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED FOR THE SAID PURPOSE. 9.2. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REF ERRED THE MATTER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER FINDING THAT THERE WAS A HUGE D IFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PREVAILING FAIR MARKET VALUE AND THE FAIR MARKE T VALUE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER VALUERS REPORT. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS CONSIDERED THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED THE FIGURE SUPPORTED BY A VALUATION REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER WHO HAS COMMENTED ON INSTANCES OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN THE LOCALITY BY SAYING THAT GENERALLY FLATS WERE SOLD AT RS.1800/- TO RS.2200/- PER SQ.FT. IN THIS LOCALITY . THE REGISTERED VALUER HAS ALSO COMMENTED THAT THE FLAT WAS IN A WELL MAINTAINED BU ILDING AND WESTERLY ITA NO. 2520/AHD/200 9 ITO VS. AJAY M.PARIKH ASST.YEAR 1998-99 - 8 - FACING AND AIRY FLAT WITH A PANORAMIC SEA-VIEW FROM THE MAJOR LIVING AREA AND FREE FROM TRAFFIC NOISE THROUGHOUT THE DAY AND IT WAS HAVING CAR PARKING SPACE ALLOTTED BY THE SOCIETY. HE HAS VALU ED THE FLAT ADMEASURING 1500 SQ.FT. @ RS.2,000/- PER SQ.FT. AT RS.30,01,920/- AS ON 01/04/1981. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO VALU ATION CELL OF THE DEPARTMENT U/S.55A OF THE I.T.ACT WHO VALUED THE SA ME AT RS.14.43 LACS AS ON 01/04/1981 AFTER CALLING FOR OBJECTIONS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME. IT IS SEEN THAT THE FLAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS SEA-FACING AND AIRY. THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED OBJECTIONS BEFOR E THE DVO SAYING THAT COMPARABLE INSTANCES ADOPTED BY THE DVO ARE NOT EXA CTLY COMPARABLE WITH THE FLAT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID INSTANCE S ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF TRUE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE POSH FLAT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS POINTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SALE INSTANCES AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FROM THE LIST FURNISHED BY THE SOCIETY PERTAIN TO SALE OF GARAGE S AND NOT THE FLATS. THIS FINDING OF FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REV ENUE BY ANY OTHER EVIDENCES. IN VIEW OF THIS MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND THE VIEW TAKE N BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS AFFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF THE REV ENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. SD/- SD/- ( A.K. GARODIA ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 09/08/2012 0,.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO. 2520/AHD/200 9 ITO VS. AJAY M.PARIKH ASST.YEAR 1998-99 - 9 - / ( %+1 2 1+ / ( %+1 2 1+ / ( %+1 2 1+ / ( %+1 2 1+/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $ / THE APPELLANT 2. %&$ / THE RESPONDENT 3. + )3 / CONCERNED CIT 4. )3() / THE CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD 5. 167 %+ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 78 9* / GUARD FILE. /) /) /) /) / BY ORDER, &1+ %+ //TRUE COPY// : :: :/ // / ' ' ' ' ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 6.8.12 (DICTATION-PAD PAGES 9 ATTACHED) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 6.8.12 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 D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S9.8.12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 9.8.12 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