Gruh Finance Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 2904/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8445 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A N SHAH
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Earning of tax free income; Question of law; Commercial expediency
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., , BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ./ I.T.A. NO.2903/AHD/2015 2. ./ I.T.A. NO.2904/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENTYEARS : 2008-09 & 2011-12) GRUH FINANCE LTD. GRUH, NETAJI MARG MITHAKALI SIX ROADS ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD 380 006 / VS. THE ADDL.CIT RNAGE-4 AHMEDABAD $ ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACG 7010 K ( $' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' / RESPONDENT ) $') / APPELLANT BY : MS. A.N. SHAH, AR ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR.DR +,*- / DATE OF HEARING 22/09/2017 ./0*- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29/ 09 /2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(AP PEALS)-VIII, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 30/01/2012 & 31/03/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2008-09 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVE LY. ITA NOS.2903 & 2904/AHD/2015 GRUH FINANCE LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2011-12 - 2 - 2. IN BOTH THESE CAPTIONED APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE QUANTUM ENHANC EMENT TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN TERMS OF SE CTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 3. WE SHALL TAKE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.29 03/AHD/2015 FOR AY 2008-09 AS THE LEAD CASE. 4. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REA DS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-2, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY HOLDIN G THAT THE APPELLANT HAS COMMITTED THE DEFAULT U/S.271(1)(C) A ND ACCORDINGLY HAS ERRED IN LEVY PENALTY OF RS.1,08,41,183/- U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS A HOUSING FINANCE COMPANY IN WH ICH PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED AND THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS TO PROVIDE LONG TERM FINANCE FO R HOUSING BESIDES PROVIDING FINANCE AND MAKING INVESTMENT ETC. 5.1. IN THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'T HE ACT') R.W.S.263 OF THE ACT, THE AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS EARNED D IVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1,89,42,065/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT FROM T AXATION. IT WAS FURTHER NOTICED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT ITA NOS.2903 & 2904/AHD/2015 GRUH FINANCE LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2011-12 - 3 - OF RS.9,45,960/- UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT. THE AO T HEREAFTER TOOK NOTE OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT IN 263 PROCEEDI NGS AS WELL AS VARIOUS REPLIES FILED BEFORE HIM IN THIS REGARD AND APPLIED RULE 8D OF THE I.T.RULES 1962 FOR THE PURPOSES AND COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE EXEMPT INCO ME. THE AO COMPUTED THE AGGREGATE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,22,25,3 94/- AS PER RULE 8D IN SUBSTITUTION OF SUO MOTU DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,45,960/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 5.2. THE AFORESAID ACTION OF THE AO WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HOWEVER, ENHANCED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A BY RS.3,28,52,064/-. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT IN APPEAL ON AFORESAID ENHANCEMENT ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A ) IN PRINCIPLES. HOWEVER, THE ITAT RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO TH E EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME QUANTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WHILE UPH OLDING THE DISALLOWANCE ON PRINCIPLES, PARTIAL RELIEF ON QUANT UM OF DISALLOWANCE WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE. 6. CONSEQUENT UPON THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE CIT(A) V IDE ORDER DATED 16/09/2015. THE PENALTY WAS QUANTIFIED BY THE CIT( A) AT RS.1,08,41,183 ON AFORESAID ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME OF RS.3,28,52,06 /-. ITA NOS.2903 & 2904/AHD/2015 GRUH FINANCE LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2011-12 - 4 - 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A) T OWARDS IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED A PPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AT THE OUTS ET THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR ALLEGED DE FAULT IN COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES, 196 2 BY THE CIT(A) IS MISDIRECTED IN LAW. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES WHERE THE LAW ON THE APPLICABILITY AND COMPUTATIONAL ASPECT WAS AT PRIMI TIVE STAGE AND ONLY EVOLVING. THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS MADE SUO MOTU MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,45,960/- WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE AFORESAID SUO MOTU DISALLOWANCE ALSO MATCHES WITH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN THIS REGARD. THE LD.AR THE REAFTER SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,45,960/- WA S COMPUTED BY ALLOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE BETWEEN TH E EXEMPT INCOME AND TAXABLE INCOME ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A RATIONALE BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT SUO MOTU DISALLOWANCE. THE LD.AR NEXT SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE GIVING RISE TO THE PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS IS ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DIRECT EXPENDITURE TOWARDS INTER EST COSTS OF RS.3,28,52,064/-. THE CIT(A) INVOKED RULE 8D(2)(I) BASED ON THE WORKING OF INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE ON THE INTEREST BE ARING FUNDS WITHDRAWN FROM VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS AND INVESTED IN MUTUAL F UNDS TEMPORARILY. ITA NOS.2903 & 2904/AHD/2015 GRUH FINANCE LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2011-12 - 5 - 8.1. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO OPENIN G AND CLOSING BALANCE OF MUTUAL FUNDS AT THE BEGINNING OR AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCES MADE UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT WAS BONAFIDE. IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT MERELY BECAUSE SOME DIFFERENT FIGURE HAS BEEN COMPUTED AND CONFIRMED IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS BY THE COORDINATE BENCH WILL NO T IPSO FACTO RESULT IN IMPOSITION OF GRIEVOUS PENALTY. 8.2. THE LD.AR VEHEMENTLY POINTED OUT IN ELABORATI ON THAT THE QUANTUM DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A IS TOWARDS INTEREST EXPEND ITURE INCURRED ON LOAN BEARING FUNDS AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO MUTUAL FUNDS GIVING RISE TO TAX FREE INCOME. THE LD.AR IN THIS CONNECTION EMPHASIZED TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING ITS OWN CAPITAL TO THE TUNE OF RS.190.26 CR ORES AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN EXCESS OF INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS OF AROUND RS.16.64 CORRES. THUS, INTEREST-FR EE CAPITAL OF ASSESSEE OUTWEIGHS THE CORRESPONDING INVESTMENT BY NEARLY T WELVE TIMES. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF OF NO DISALL OWANCE ATTRIBUTABLE ON SUCH INVESTMENTS TOWARDS INTEREST EXPENSES. 8.3. THE LD.AR NEXT SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE ITAT ENDORSING PART CONFIRMATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. ITA NOS.2903 & 2904/AHD/2015 GRUH FINANCE LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2011-12 - 6 - THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN TAX APPEAL NOS.3 90/391/392 OF 2017 WAS PLEASED TO ADMIT THE AFORESAID ISSUE OF DI SALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 18/07/2017. THE LD.AR T HEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE GIVING RISE TO THE P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS ITSELF IS IN DEBATE AND ADMITTEDLY INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL Q UESTION OF LAW AS RECOGNIZED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 8.4. THE LD.AR THEREAFTER SUBMITTED IN THE ALTERN ATIVE THAT THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A WAS ALSO REDUCED FROM R S.3,28,52,064/- TO RS.1,89,42,065/- BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN TANDEM THE P ENALTY IMPOSED ALSO REQUIRES TO BE REDUCED IN THE ALTERNATIVE. 9. THE LD.DR FOR THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SU BMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ESTABLISHED THE DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN INT EREST-FREE FUND AND THE CORRESPONDING MUTUAL FUND INVESTMENT. THE LD.D R CONTENDED THAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE ON ONE HAND CLAIMED DEDUCTION TO WARDS INTEREST EXPENDITURE, THE CORRESPONDING DIVIDEND INCOME HAS BEEN CLAIMED EXEMPT. THE DIRECT EXPENDITURE FOUND ATTRIBUTABLE TOWARDS EARNING EXEMPT INCOME ON FACTS THUS CANNOT BE DENIED. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON SUCH EX-FACIE OMISSION IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE, CALLS FOR CONSEQUE NTIAL PENALTY AS A REMEDY FOR LOSS OF REVENUE. THE LD.DR THEREFORE SU BMITTED THAT NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CALLED FOR. THE LD.DR RELIED ITA NOS.2903 & 2904/AHD/2015 GRUH FINANCE LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2011-12 - 7 - UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TR IBUNAL IN GSFC VS. ACIT 39 SOT 570 (AHD.) AND OF DELOITTE CONSULTING I NDIA PVT.LTD. (2014) 151 ITD 454 (MUM.) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT EXPRESS VIOLATION OF PROVISION OF LAW IN MAKING COMPUTATION WHEREBY CHAR GEABLE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WARRANTS IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. THE LD.DR ACCORDINGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY BY CIT(A) O N QUANTUM DISALLOWANCE CARRIED OUT BY THE CIT(A) UNDER S.14A IN EXERCISE OF ITS ENHANCEMENT POWERS. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT UNDER RULE 8D(2)(I) OF THE I.T . RULES WHERE IT WAS FACTUALLY FOUND THAT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WERE DE PLOYED TOWARDS CERTAIN INVESTMENTS GIVING RISE TO TAX-FREE INCOME. IT IS FURTHER OF THE CASE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT IN VIEW OF THE DIRECT NE XUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AND CORRESPONDING INVESTMENT S, THE DISALLOWANCE CARRIED BY THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT BE ASSAILED IN A NY MANNER. THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY TH E ITAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, CLAI MS THAT THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WHICH COULD NOT BE IMMEDIATELY DEPLOY ED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS INVESTMENTS WERE TEMPORARILY PLACED IN MUTU AL FUNDS AS A MEASURE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HA VE ANY SUCH OPENING ITA NOS.2903 & 2904/AHD/2015 GRUH FINANCE LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2011-12 - 8 - INVESTMENT OR CLOSING INVESTMENT IN ITS FINANCIAL S TATEMENT. THE INVESTMENT MADE IS VERY TEMPORARY WHICH HAS GIVEN R ISE TO SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. TO BUTTRESS ITS VIEW ON NON-IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT IT HAS LARGE CHUNK OF OWN CAPITAL WHI CH IS TOTALLY INTEREST- FREE IN COMPARISON TO A SMALL PORTION OF INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITS THAT THE QUANTUM ADDITION HAS BEEN APPEALED AGAINST IN THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND IS PE NDING FOR FINAL ADJUDICATION AFTER ADMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL QU ESTION OF LAW CONTEMPLATED UNDER S.260A OF THE ACT. 11. ON THESE BROADER FACTS, WE ARE INCLINED TO AD MIT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS NON-IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WHILE THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN E NDORSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE QUANTUM PROCEED INGS, AFORESAID ORDER OF THE ITAT IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED F OR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS IN THE APPEAL FILED UNDER S.260A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN EXISTENCE OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE FORM OF OWN FUNDS WHICH SUBSTANTIALLY EXCEEDS THE APPLICATION OF INTE REST-BEARING FUNDS TOWARDS MUTUAL FUNDS. IN THESE FACTS, ONE CANNOT A TTRIBUTE MOTIVE FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 8D(2)(I) WHEN TESTED ON DISTINCT PARAMETERS OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ISSUE INVOLVED CANNOT ALSO BE SA ID TO BE ENTIRELY FREE OF ANY DEBATE WHATSOEVER IN VIEW OF ADMISSION OF SU BSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. COUP LED WITH THIS, AS ITA NOS.2903 & 2904/AHD/2015 GRUH FINANCE LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2011-12 - 9 - NOTED EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE SHELTER O F AVAILABILITY OF OWN FUNDS AT ITS DISPOSAL. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS REASONABLE TO INFER BONAFIDE AND CONSEQUENTLY DIFFICULT TO APPROVE THE ACTION OF THE REVENUE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WITH THE AID OF SECTION 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 12. NEEDLESS TO SAY, DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IPSO FACTO DOES NOT MEAN CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF MADE SUO MOTU DISALLOWANCE WHICH IS NOT TOTALLY DEVOID OF ANY REASONABLE BASIS. THEREFORE, NO CULPABILITY IS ATT RIBUTABLE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE. IT IS TRITE THAT A FINDING IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ON DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE AUTOMATICALLY ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AS NOTED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAVE DISCHARGED PRIMARY BURDEN LAY UPON IT. THE E XPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS INTEREST DISALLOWANCE MADE UND ER S.14A APPEARS TO BE SATISFACTORY AND IS PERCEIVED TO BEAR TRAPPINGS OF BONAFIDE. THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT THUS CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DISCRETION AVAILABLE TO THE CI T(A) FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN EXERCISED JUDICIOUSLY A ND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY SO IMPOSED BY T HE REVENUE IS CANCELLED. ITA NOS.2903 & 2904/AHD/2015 GRUH FINANCE LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2011-12 - 10 - 13. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2903 /AHD/2015 FOR AY 2008-09 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.2904/AHD/2015 FOR AY 2011-12 ASSESSEES AP PEAL 14. BOTH THE SIDES CONSENTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL TOO. THUS, FOR PARITY OF REASONS NOTED ABOVE , OUR VIEW IN ITA NO.2903/AHD/2015 FOR AY 2008-09 ABOVE SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE APPEAL CAPTIONED ABOVE. AS A RESULT, THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2904/AHD/2015 FOR AY 2011-12 CONCERNING PEN ALTY IMPOSED UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS ALSO QUASHED. 15. AS A RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2904/ AHD/2015 FOR AY 2011-12 IS ALLOWED. 16. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29/ 09 /2017 SD/- SD/- (..) ( ) ( S.S. GODARA ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 29/ 09 /2017 4..+,.+../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NOS.2903 & 2904/AHD/2015 GRUH FINANCE LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEARS 2008-09 & 2011-12 - 11 - !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 567- 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8- ( ) / THE CIT(A)-VIII, AHMEDABAD 5. 9:-+67 , 670 , 5 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <, / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, (9-- //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 27.9.17 (DICTATION-PAD 25- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 27.9.17 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.29.9.17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 29.9.17 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