Shri Kamal Madanmohan Mangaldas, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 2839/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60463 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINOD TANWANISR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL R SHAH
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A; 37(1)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.2839 /AHD/2011 ASSTT. YEAR . 2008-09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, A HMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JM & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI A.M.) I.T.A. NO.28 39/AHD/2011. (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) KAMAL MADMOHAN MANGALDAS MANGAL BAUG, SHETH MANGALDAS ROAD, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD-380006. (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KENDRIYA PRATYAKSHA BHAVAN, NEAR PANJARA POLE, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD. (RESPONDENT) PAN: AHCPM 1333R APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL R. SHAH. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI,SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 1-5-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-5-2012 PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A)- VI, AHMEDABAD DATED 18-10-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND A PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECT, AND IS ALSO A DIRECTOR OF A AKAR INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING INCOME IN THE FORM OF PROF ESSIONAL FEES, CAPITAL GAINS, INTEREST, DIVIDEND AND DIRECTOR FEES. THE RE TURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 16-9-2008 DECLARING INCOME OF RS .42,34,640/-. THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND T HE ASSESSMENT WAS ITA NO.2839 /AHD/2011 ASSTT. YEAR . 2008-09 2 COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 22 -10-2010 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.45,45,830/- AFTER MAKING VAR IOUS ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A). CIT (A) GRANTED PA RTIAL RELIEF TO ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE FIRST GROUND IS NOT PRESSED AND HENCE NOT AD JUDICATED. 4. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.51,272/- MADE U/S 14A/RULE 8D OF THE I.T. ACT,1961. 5. DURING THE COURSED OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A. O. NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS, BOND S AND SHARES. IT ALSO DERIVED EXEMPT INCOME IN THE FORM OF DIVIDENDS, LON G TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPL AIN AS TO WHY EXPENSES RELATED TO EXEMPT INCOME NOT TO BE DISALLO WED U/S.14A R.W.S. 8D. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENSES FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AND FURTHER THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF OWN FUNDS AND SAVINGS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T ACCEPTABLE TO A.O. HE WORKED OUT DISALLOWANCE BY INVOKING PROVISION OF RULE 8D AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED RS.51,272/-. 6. ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF A.O. PREFER RED APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A).CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY A.O. FOR THE REASON THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY SINC E ASSESSEE DID NOT DISALLOW ANY PART OF OTHER EXPENSES AND FURTHER SIN CE RULE 8D IS HELD APPLICABLE W,.E.F. A.Y. 2008-09 BY MUMBAI HIGH COUR T. ITA NO.2839 /AHD/2011 ASSTT. YEAR . 2008-09 3 7. AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE THE ASS ESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. BEFORE US THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT INVESTMENT S WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF OWN FUNDS AND NO BORROWED FUNDS HAV E BEEN UTILIZED. NO OTHER EXPENSES WERE INCURRED. THE EXPENSES INCURRE D AND CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION ARE AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME AND IT DO ES NOT CONTAIN ANY NON-TAXABLE INCOME. THE NON TAXABLE INCOME IS REFLE CTED IN ASSESSEES PERSONAL PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND HE HAS NOT CLA IMED ANY EXPENSES AGAINST THE SAME. HE PLACED ON PAGE-10 OF THE PAPER BOOK HIS PERSONAL PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND ON PAGE NO.5 TO 7 OF PA PER BOOK THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF HIS BUSINESS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO FINDING OF AO ABOUT INCURRING OF EXPENSES RELATED TO EXEMPT IN COME AND WHEN NO SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED THERE CANNOT BE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. FOR THIS PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DEC ISIONS: (1) CIT VS RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD 339 ITR 632 (BOM). (2) DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD V/S DCIT 45 SOT 37 (AHD) (URO) AND (3) BALARAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD VS DCIT 140 TTJ (KO L) (UO) 9. HE THUS URGED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE BE DELETED. 10. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF A.O. ITA NO.2839 /AHD/2011 ASSTT. YEAR . 2008-09 4 11. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE RECORDS. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED TAX FR EE INCOME IN THE FORM OF DIVIDEND ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HA S NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENSES FOR EARNING THE INCOME. THE A.O. HAS NOT G IVEN ANY CLEAR FINDING OF INCURRING OF EXPENSES, AND HAS NOT ESTABLISHED N EXUS OF EXPENSES INCURRED WITH THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. SECTIO N 14A (2) EMPOWERS THE A.O. TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED I N RELATION TO TAX FREE INCOME IF HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSE SSEE, HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SATISFACTION OF THE A.O. AS TO THE INCORRECT CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS A PRE-CONDITION AND A NECESSITY FOR INVOKING THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D. A.O. CAN THEREFORE PROCEED TO INVOKE RULE 8D ONLY WHEN HE IS NOT SATIS FIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF CLAIM BY ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE OR EXPENDITURE HAVING BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXE MPT INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE A.O. HAS DIRECTLY INVOKED PROVISIO N OF RULE 8D WITHOUT RENDERING ANY OPINION ON THE CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWI SE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W. RULE 8D CAN BE INVOKE D IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE THEREFORE, DIRECT TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. 12. THE NEXT GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO 1/4 TH AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPENSES HOLDING THE SAME TO BE OF PERSONAL NATURE. 13. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E A.O. FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PREMISES AND RESIDENCE IS S ITUATED AT THE SAME LOCATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO S HOW CAUSE AS TO WHY CERTAIN EXPENSES LIKE THOSE ON BOOKS/PERIODICALS, R EPAIRS, SECURITY, ITA NO.2839 /AHD/2011 ASSTT. YEAR . 2008-09 5 COMPUTER, DEPRECIATION ON CAR, TRAVELING ETC., SHOU LD NOT BE PROPORTIONATELY TREATED AS PERSONAL IN NATURE SINCE THE RESIDENCE A ND OFFICE ARE THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE VIDE SUBMISSIONS DATED 20-10-2010 HAS STATED THAT BOOKS AND PERIODICALS ARE MAINLY CONNECTED TO PROFESSION AND THAT OTHER MAGAZINES ARE PURCHASED FROM HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. FO R REPAIRS IT IS STATED THAT SEPARATE REPAIRS HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR RESIDE NCE AND DEBITED TO HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. FOR SECURITY EXPENSES, IT IS ST ATED THAT THE RESIDENCE AND OFFICE ARE OF SEPARATE PREMISES AND THAT THE SE CURITY CHARGES ARE FOR OFFICE ONLY AND RESIDENCE IS GUARDED BY DOMESTIC HE LP AND GARDENERS. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED BY T HE A.O. FOR THE REASON THAT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE O FFICE CONSISTS OF ONE COMPOSITE STRUCTURE AND CAN BE ASSESSED FROM A COMM ON ENTRANCE. THE OFFICE BUILDING IS NOT A SEPARATE STRUCTURE AND DOE S NOT HAVE A SEPARATE COMPOUND. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE HAD NO T FURNISHED ANY CONVINCING PROOF OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN THE RESIDEN CE AND OFFICE. NO OTHER EVIDENCES LIKE LOG BOOK ETC. SHOWING QUANTUM OF BUSINESS USAGE OF CAR WAS PRODUCED BEFORE A.O.ACCORDING TO A.O., USAG E OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT FOR PERSONAL USE WAS OBVIOUS CONSIDERING THE INVEST MENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, LIFESTYLE AND THE LOCATION. THE REASONING THAT SECURITY IS ONLY FOR OFFICE AND GARDENERS GUARD THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT FO UND TO BE CONVINCING. IN VIEW OF THESE FINDINGS, ONE FOURTH OF THE FOLLOW ING EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME WERE TREATED A S PERSONAL EXPENSES U/S. 37(1): I) SULLAGE WATER REUSE EXP. : RS. 28,160/- II) TELEPHONE EXP. : RS. 88,929/- III) COMPUTER EXPENSES. : RS. 96,016/- IV) BOOKS/PERIODICALS. : RS. 30,511/- V) MOTOR CAR EXP. : RS1,25,150/- ITA NO.2839 /AHD/2011 ASSTT. YEAR . 2008-09 6 VI) TRAVELING EXP. : RS. 36,453/- VII) DEPRECIATION : RS.3,70,368/- VIII) SECURITY CHARGES. : RS. 80,3 68/- IX) REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE : RS. 75, 650/- : RS.9,31,433/- 14. THE A.O. THEREFORE DISALLOWED ONE FOURTH OF RS. 9,31,433 = RS.2,32,858/- LESS RS.32,112/- (SUO MOTO DISALLOWED ) = RS.2,00,746/- IS BEING PERSONAL IN NATURE IN TERMS OF SECTION 37(1) AND NOT PERTAINING TO EARNING OF ANY BUSINESS INCOME. 15. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT (A). CIT (A) GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSM ENT ORDER AND APPELLANTS SUBMISSION. A.O. DISALLOWED1/4 TH OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES FOR PERSONAL USE. THIS DISALLOWANCE IS BASED ON INS PECTORS REPORT IN WHICH IT IS MENTIONED THAT APPELLANTS RESIDENCE AN D OFFICE PREMISES ARE ADJOINING AND NOT HAVING ANY BOUNDARY WALL. APP ELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED LOCATION PLAN OF OFFICE AND RESIDENCE. NO DOUBT, BOTH ARE VERY CLOSE AND THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF SOME PERSO NAL ELEMENT IN SOME OF THESE EXPENSES. HOWEVER, APPELLANT HIMSELF DISALLOWED PART OF MOTOR CAR AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES FOR PERSONAL US E. WHICH MEANS PERSONAL USE IS NOT DENIED BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVE R, ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED EXPENSES FOR PERSONAL USE EVEN O UT OF COMPUTER EXPENSES RS.96,016/- AND DEPRECIATION ON ALL BUSINE SS ASSETS. REGARDING TRAVELING EXPENSES, APPELLANT ALREADY TRE ATED PERSONAL EXPENSES SEPARATELY. THEREFORE AS FAR AS COMPUTER E XPENSES ARE CONCERNED, THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USE AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWANCE OUT OF COMPUTER EXPENSES IS NOT CONFIR MED. AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES , SINCE APPELLANT CLAIMED PERSONAL TRAVELLING EXPENSES SEPA RATELY, FURTHER DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL ELEMENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND ITA NO.2839 /AHD/2011 ASSTT. YEAR . 2008-09 7 ACCORDINGLY THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TRAVELING EXPEN SES OF RS.36,453/- IS DELETED. AS REGARDS DEPRECIATION OF RS.3,70,196/-, THE SAM E IS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT ON ENTIRE BUSINESS ASSETS INCLUDI NG MOTOR CAR, FURNITURE ETC. EXCEPT MOTOR CAR AND FURNITURE INSTA LLED AT THE RESIDENCE, THERE CANT BE ANY PERSONAL ELEMENT OF THE BUSINESS ASSETS. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE FOR PERSONAL USE CANNOT BE MADE OUT OF DEPRECIATION ON OTHER BUSINESS ASSETS EXCEPT MOTOR CAR AND FURNITURE. THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION FOR PERSONAL USE I S THEREFORE RESTRICTED TO ONLY MOTOR CAR AND FURNITURE. THE BAL ANCE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF DEPRECIATION IS DELETED. SUBJECT TO ABOVE RELIEF, I HOLD THAT THERE WOULD BE PERSONAL ELEMENT INVOLVED IN OTHER EXPENSES AND THEREFORE TH E DISALLOWANCE AT THE RATE OF ONE FOURTH MADE BY THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIE D. THEBALANCE DISALLOWANCE IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. 16. AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF CIT (A), THE ASSESSE E IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOU MOTO DISALLOWED EXPENSES OF RS 32,112 BEING OF PERSONAL IN NATURE. (PAGE 15 OF PAPER BOOK). WITH REFERENCE TO SULLAGE EXPENSES THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE EXPENSES ARE THROUGH CHEQUE. HE ALSO P LACED ON RECORD LEDGER ACCOUNT (PAGE 19 OF P.B). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT PINPOINTED ANY ITEM OF PERSONAL IN NATURE. THE ASSESSEE HAD S UO MOTO DISALLOWED 1/5 TH OF THE CAR EXPENSES, 1/4 TH OF THE TELEPHONE EXPENSES AS BEING PERSONAL IN NATURE. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLA CED A CHART (ON PAGE 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK) WHEREIN THE VARIOUS EXPENSES WER E LISTED. HE POINTED OUT FROM THE SUMMARIZED CHART THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUO-MOTO DISALLOWED RS.7,082/- OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND RS.25,030/- OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AS BEING OF PERSONAL IN NATURE. ACCORDING TO LD. A. R. THE SUO-MOTO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSEE TAKES CARE OF PERSONA L EXPENSES AND ITA NO.2839 /AHD/2011 ASSTT. YEAR . 2008-09 8 FURTHER NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. HE ALSO PLAC ED ON PAGE 99 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BE NCH, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 1979-80 AND 1980-81, WHEREIN THE CO-O RDINATE BENCH HAD HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE BE RESTRICTED TO 1/4 TH OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND 1/5 TH OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES. FOLLOWING THE ITAT ORDER, TH E ASSESSEE SUO-MOTO DISALLOWED EXPENSES. HE ALSO PLACED ON PAGE 82 TO 84 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES TO PROVE T HAT THESE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.11.68 LACS HAVE BEEN INCURRED BUT H AVE NOT BEEN DEBITED TO BUSINESS INCOME AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. WITH REFERENCE TO SULLAGE WATER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD DEVELOPED A SIMPLE METHOD FOR USING THE SULLAGE WAT ER WHICH COULD BE USED FOR GARDENING ETC. THE EXPENSES THAT HAVE BEEN INCURRED WERE BY CHEQUE AND THE COPY OF LEDGER WAS PLACED AT PAGE 19 OF PAPER BOOK. THE LD. A.R. THUS URGED THAT NO ADDITIONAL DISALLOWANCE OTHER THAN THOSE ALREADY DISALLOWED SUO-MOTO IS CALLED FOR. 17. THE LD. D,.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE O RDER OF A.O. 18. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCU RRED VARIOUS EXPENSES AS LISTED ON PAGE 15 OF PAPER BOOK AND SUO-MOTO DIS ALLOWED EXPENSES FROM THEM. THE A.O. HAS IN ADDITION TO THE DISALLOW ANCE MADE BY ASSESSEE FURTHER DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES. THE DISALLOWANCE O F EXPENSES BY A.O. WAS ADHOC IN NATURE. HE HAS NOT POINTED OUT THE EXP ENSES WHICH ARE OF NON BUSINESS IN NATURE. IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN E ARLIER YEARS, CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT HAD RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE PERTA INING TO MOTOR CAR AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ON THE SAME BA SIS SUO-MOTO ITA NO.2839 /AHD/2011 ASSTT. YEAR . 2008-09 9 DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN EXCESS OF RS.11 LACS AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN C LAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENSE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPENSES BEING PINPOINTED BY A.O. TO BE OF NON- BUSINESS IN NATURE, NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT T O DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY A.O. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDI NGLY ALLOWED. 19. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31- 5 - 2012. SD/- SD/- ( D. K. TYAGI) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-VI, AHMEDABAD. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD. ITA NO.2839 /AHD/2011 ASSTT. YEAR . 2008-09 10 1.DATE OF DICTATION 21 - 5 -2012 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 29 / 5 / 2012 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S 30 - 5 -2012. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 31 - 5 -2012 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 31 - 5 -2012 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 3 1 - 5 -2012. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..