Shri Tushar Vasudevbhai Patel, Nadiad V. The Dy.CIT, (Intl. Tax), Vadodara

ITA 2954/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7881 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Reasonable cause
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

, CH CHCH CH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD LOZJH LOZJH LOZJH LOZJH EGKOHJ EGKOHJ EGKOHJ EGKOHJ IZLKN] U; IZLKN] U; IZLKN] U; IZLKN] U;KF KFKF KF;D LNL; , ;D LNL; , ;D LNL; , ;D LNL; ,OA OAOA OA OLHE OLHE OLHE OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; VGEN] YS[KK LNL; VGEN] YS[KK LNL; VGEN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{KA DS LE{KA DS LE{KA DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2954/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) SHRI TUSHAR VASUDEVBHAI PATEL, AJAYBHAI M. PATEL BUILDING, DAVE POLE, KAKAR KHAD, NADIAD 387 001 / VS. DCIT, (INTL. TAX), VADODARA. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ARNPP 7404 R ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR & PARIN SHAH, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 20/06/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16/07/2018 $% / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-13, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)- 13/AHD/INTL.TAXN./103/2014-15 DATED 10-08-2015 ARIS ING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 2 - (HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 02- 02-2015 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS CONFIRMI NG ACTION OF AO RESTRICTING EXEMPTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT TO RS. 50 LAKH INSTEAD OF RS.1 CRORE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD INVESTMENT OF RS. 50 LAKH EACH IN TWO FINANCIA L YEARS AS PERMISSIBLE UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION. 2. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING VIEW OF AO THAT DATE OF ALLOTMENT & CERTIFICATE OF BONDS INDIC ATED INVESTMENT IN THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR ALTHOUGH WITHIN SIX MONT HS OF SALE OF LAND. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD DATE OF PAYMENT / ENCASHMENT OF CHEQUE TO BE RECKONED FOR CONSIDERING THE INVESTMEN T OF RS. 50 LACS EACH FALLING IN TWO CONSECUTIVE FINANCIAL YEAR S. 3. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL DI RECTLY ON ISSUE UNDER APPEAL SUBMITTED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEED INGS. NON- COGNIZANCE OF BINDING DECISIONS OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IS HIGHLY IMPROPER AND AGAINST JUDICIAL PROPRIETY. 4. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE BY AO OF RS 15 LAKHS EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 54F OF T HE ACT. LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING DOCUMENTS EVIDENCI NG CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSE E. LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED DEDUCTION AS CLAIMED. 5. LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ADJUDICATING GROUND # 5 OF THE APPEAL ALTERNATIVELY CLAIMING ALLOWANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM AVAILABLE U/S 54F TOWARDS INVESTME NT IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT CLAIM U/S 54EC O F THE ACT IS NOT ALLOWED. 6. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A/234B & 234C OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 7. INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 3 - 3. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.1, 2 & 3 IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF AO BY D ISALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50 LACS ONL Y. 4. THE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I N THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NON-RESIDENT DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF A PLOT OF LAND LOCATED AT NADIAD CHAKLASHI PARTY R.S.N. 1048 ADMEASURING 4553 SQ. MTRS. THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED SU CH A PLOT OF LAND IN THE YEAR 1984. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS SOL D SUCH A PIECE OF THE PLOT FOR RS. 1,10,00,000/- VIDE DATED 19-03-2012. T HE ASSESSEE ON THE SALE OF SUCH A PLOT OF LAND HAS WORKED OUT A LONG-T ERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,06,96,151/- ONLY. THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SUCH LO NG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN INCOME HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT FO R RS.1,00,00,000/- BY WAY OF INVESTING IN NHAI BONDS. HOWEVER, THE AO DURING THE PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THA T THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54EC ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION ON ACCOUNT OF I NVESTMENT IN THE SPECIFIED BONDS IS LIMITED TO THE EXTENT OF THE MAX IMUM AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/-. THE AO IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM RELI ED ON THE ORDER OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL OF JAIPUR IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI RAJKUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) REPORTED IN 50 SOT 2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 31-01-2012. THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 54EC HAS CLARIFIED THE AMB IGUITY THAT DEDUCTION WILL BE CLAIMED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 50,00,000/-. THE AO ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 4 - ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE BONDS WERE ALLOTTED BY THE N ATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA DATED 30 TH MAY 2012 AND 4 TH JULY 2012 RESPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, THE INVESTMENT U/S 54EC OF THE ACT HAS B EEN MADE IN THE F.Y. 2012-13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE IN NHAI BONDS WHICH WAS INVESTED IN THE SECOND TIME FOR RS.50,00,000/-. THUS THE ADDITION WAS MADE TO T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD. C IT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT FOR RS. 1,00,00,000/- . IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING ORDERS: 1. SMT. JYOTIKABEN BHUPENDRABHAI SHAH VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10, AHMEDABAD (IT A NO. 2013/AHD/2011) (ITAT AHMEDABAD ON 05/09/2014) 2. ASPI GINWALA VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX CIRCLE-5, BARODA (ITA NO.3226/AHD/2011) (ITAT AHMED ABAD ON 30/03/2012) 3. CIT, CHENNAI VS. C JAICHANDER (T.C. (A) NO.419 AND 533 OF 2014) (MADRAS HIGH COURT ON 15/09/2014) HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: AS IT COULD BE SEEN THAT LEGISLATURE HAS EXPRESSED THAT ONLY ONE INVESTMENT IS ALLOWED UNDER THIS SECTION. THIS IS C LEAR BY THE WORD INVESTMENT USED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THE AO HAS AL SO HIGHLIGHTED FEW ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 5 - CASES IN WHICH THE VIEW TAKEN BY HONBLE TRIBUNAL I S IN HIS SUPPORT NAMELY 1. ACIT VS. RAJKUMAR JAIN AND SONS 19 TAXMANN.COM 27(J P) AND 2. AREVA T&D VS. ACIT 177 TAXMANN 192 (MADRAS). FURTHER THE AO HAS HELD, EVEN IF INTERPRETATION OF THE APPELLANT IS HELD CORRECT, BOTH THE INVESTMENT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE ONE FYR THAT IS 2012-13. HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN EXCESS CLAI M OF RS.50 LAKHS U/S 54EC. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT THE FACTUAL FINDINGS MADE BY THE AO. THE ADDITION OF RS.50 LAKHS IN CONF IRMED. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AR BEFORE US FILED PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS RUN NING FROM PAGES 1 TO 55 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN NHAI BONDS WAS MADE WITHIN THE TIME AS SPECIFIED U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. THEREFOR E, HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR IN SUPPOR T OF HIS CLAIM ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. C. JAICHANDER REPORTED IN 370 ITR 579. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT NHAI ISSUE D THE CERTIFICATE FOR THE ALLOTMENT OF BOND IN THE SUBSEQUENT F.Y. I.E., 30 TH APRIL 2012 AND 31 ST MAY 2012, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR IN HIS REJOINDER SUBMITTED THAT THE DATE OF PAYMENT IS RELEVANT FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. THU S, THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT FOR THE BONDS CANNOT BE CRITERIA FOR DECI DING THE YEAR OF ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 6 - EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN NHAI. THE LD. AR IN THIS REGARD RELIED ON THE OR DER OF HONBLE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIVEK JAIRAZBHO Y VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.236/BANG/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 14-12-2012, WHERE IN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 10.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON A DECISIO N OF THE ITAT, BOMBAY BENCH IN THE CASE OF KUMARPAL AMRUTLAL DOSHI VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.1523/MUM/2010 DT.9.2.2011 WHEREIN THE TRIBUN AL RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. OGALE GLASS WORKS LTD (25 ITR 529) HAS HELD THAT PAYMENT BY CHEQUE SUBSEQUENTLY REALIZED ON THE CHEQUE BEING HONOURED AND ENCASHED RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE CHEQUE A ND IN LAW THE ITA NO.236/BANG/12 DATE OF PAYMENT IS THE DATE OF DELIV ERY OF THE CHEQUE. IN THE CITED CASE THE ASSESSEE THEREIN HAD ISSUED A CH EQUE TO NABARD ON 9.2.2006 WHICH WAS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AS SPECIFIED IN SECTIN 54EC. THE CHEQUE GOT ENCASHED ON 15.2.2006 W HICH WAS AFTER A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE DA TE OF PAYMENT IS THE DATE OF TENDER OF THE CHEQUE I.E. 9.2.2006. IN THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CHEQUE DT.4.6.2008 ISSUED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR NHAI BONDS WAS ENCASHED BY NHAI ON 9.6.2008 WHICH IS BEFORE TH E EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS (I.E. 13.6.2008) AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ON AN EVEN BETTER FOOTING THAN THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 10.3 FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF ASPI GINWALA & OTHERS (SUPRA) CITED EARLIER IN THIS ORDE R, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO INVEST IN BONDS WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MO NTHS AS THE ISSUE WAS NOT OPEN AND DID SO THE MOMENT THE SAME WAS MADE OP EN TO PUBLIC AND THUS THE ALLOTMENT WAS MADE AFTER THE STATUTORY PER IOD OF SIX MONTHS. THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH, RELYING ON AN EARLIER DE CISION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF RAM AGARWAL VS. JCIT RE PORTED IN 81 ITD 163 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM INVESTING WITHIN THE STATUTORILY PERMITTED PER IOD OF SIX MONTHS AND ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID INVESTMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT FOR THE INVESTMENT IN NHA I WHICH WAS ENCASHED ON 9.6.2008 WELL WITHIN THE STATUTORILY PE RMITTED PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY (I.E. UPTO 13.6.2008). WHAT ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 7 - IS TO BE RECKONED HERE IS THE DATE OF PAYMENT AND N OT THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT AS THE SAME IS NOT IN THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE HOLD THAT THE DATE OF PAYMENT (I. E. DATE OF ENCASHMENT OF CHEQUE) IS TO BE RECKONED FOR CALCULATING THE SI X MONTH PERIOD AND SINCE IN THIS CASE THE DATE OF PAYMENT / ENCASHMENT BEING WELL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO E XEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT EVEN ON THE SECOND INVESTMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS MADE IN BONDS ISSUED BY NHAI. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. LD DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSU E IN THE PRESENT CASE RELATES TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R RS.1,00,00,000/- UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IN THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE THIS TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF ASPI GINWALA, SHREE RAM ENGG. & MFG. INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 20 TAXMANN.COM 75 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: THE DISPUTE WHICH IS TO BE DECIDED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION OF RS. 1 CRORE AS SIX MONTHS PERIOD FOR INVESTMENT IN ELIG IBLE INVESTMENT INVOLVES TWO FINANCIAL YEARS. IF THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS 'YES', WHETHER INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN NHAI BON DS ON 26-5-2008 BEYOND SIX MONTHS PERIOD IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO SUBSCRIPTION FOR ELIGIBLE INVESTMENT WAS AV AILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FROM 1-4-2008 TO 26-5-2008. [PARA 7] IT IS CLEAR FROM PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC THAT WHERE ASSESSEE TRANSFERS HIS CAPITAL ASSET AFTER 30TH SEPTEMBER OF THE FINAN CIAL YEAR HE GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN INVESTMENT OF RS. 50 LAKHS E ACH IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS AND IS ABLE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UP T O RS. 1 CRORE UNDER SECTION 54EC. ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 8 - SINCE THE WORDING OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC IS CLEAR, THE BENEFITS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIE D. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, ASSESSEE IN INSTANT CASE, WAS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTIO N OF RS. 1 CRORE AS SIX MONTHS' PERIOD FOR INVESTMENT IN ELIGIBLE INVESTMEN TS INVOLVED WAS TWO FINANCIAL YEARS. [PARA 8] NOW, COMING TO THE SECOND ASPECT OF THE MATTER, WHE THER INVESTMENT OF RS. 50 LAKHS MADE IN NHAI BONDS ON 26-5-2008 CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE MADE WITHIN SIX MONTHS PERIOD AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TO MAKE INVESTMENT I N SUCH BONDS BETWEEN 1-4-2008 TO 21-4-2008. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT SUBSCRIPTION OF ELIGIBLE BONDS WAS CLOSED DURING TH IS PERIOD TILL 26-5- 2008 AND ON THE 1ST DAY OF THE REOPENING OF THE SUB SCRIPTION, THE ASSESSEE MADE THIS INVESTMENT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTAN CES, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHICH WAS BEYOND HIS CONTROL IN MAKING INVESTMENT IN THESE BONDS WITHIN THE TIME PR ESCRIBED. FURTHER VARIOUS JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN A VIEW THAT EXEMPTION SHOULD BE GRANTED IN SUCH CASES WHERE THERE IS A DELAY IN MAK ING INVESTMENT DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF THE BONDS AND HAVE HELD THAT IT IS A REASONABLE CAUSE AND THE EXEMPTION SHOULD BE GRANTED. [PARA 9] THUS, IT IS HELD THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE A SSESSEE ON 26-5-2008 BEYOND SIX MONTHS WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION IN VIE W OF THE FACT THAT NO SUBSCRIPTION FOR ELIGIBLE INVESTMENT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FROM 1-4-2008 TO 26-5-2008. SIMILARLY, WE ALSO FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM T HE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C. JAICHANDER ( SUPRA) REPORTED IN 370 ITR 579, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD A S UNDER: ON A PLAIN READING OF THE PROVISION, IT IS THE VIE W THAT SECTION 54EC(1) RESTRICTS THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE PERIOD OF INVESTME NT AFTER THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD TO SIX MONTHS. THERE IS NO CAP ON THE INVESTMENT TO BE MADE IN BONDS. THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(1) SPECIFIES THE QUANTUM OF INVESTMENT AND IT STATES THAT THE INVEST MENT SO MADE ON OR AFTER 1-4-2007 IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BY AN ASSESSEE DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEE S. IN OTHER WORDS, AS PER THE MANDATE OF SECTION 54EC(1) THE TIME LIMIT F OR INVESTMENT IS SIX MONTHS AND THE BENEFIT THAT FLOWS FROM THE FIRST PR OVISO IS THAT IF THE ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 9 - ASSESSEE MAKES THE INVESTMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR, IT WOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54EC(1). [PARA 7] FROM THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, THERE REMAINS NO AMBIGUITY THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE IN NHAI BONDS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,00,00,000/-. THERE FORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW, HENCE GR OUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUN D NO.4 AND 5 IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF AO BY DENYING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE BESIDES THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 54EC OF THE ACT AS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH HAS ALSO CLAIM ED THE DEDUCTION OF RS.15,00,000/- U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CLA IMED TO HAVE PURCHASED A PIECE OF LAND ADMEASURING 149.7 SQ. MTR S. FROM M/S SHREEJI VILLAS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMS TO HAVE MADE TH E PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PLOT VIZ-A-VIZ COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS DETAILED UNDER: 06/04/2011 CH NO.116781 1500000 LAND 25/03/2013 CH NO.756125 325000 LAND 25/03/2013 WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK 100000 STAMP DUTY 03/01/2012 WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK 1150000 CONSTRUCTION 15/03/2013 WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK 50000 CONSTRUCTION ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 10 - 29/03/2013 CH NO.756126 100000 CONSTRUCTION 25/03/2013 CH NO.756127 48700 SERVICE TAX ON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL AMOUNT PAID FOR RESIDENT HOUSE 3273700 IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD MADE THE PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A PLOT OF LAND WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFO RE THE SALE OF ASSETS, I.E. 06-04-2011 THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THE LAND FOR RS. 15,00,000.00 IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF T HE ACT. HOWEVER, THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS O BSERVED CERTAIN FACTS AS DETAILED UNDER: I. THE PURCHASE DEED FOR THE PLOT OF LAND WAS EXECUTED ON 28/03/13 FOR THE PURCHASE OF A PLOT OF LAND. THE RE QUIREMENT OF THE SECTION 54F REQUIRES THAT THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO INVEST IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND NOT IN THE PIECE OF LAND. II. EVEN IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THEN ALSO ASS ESSEE FAILED TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM T HE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSETS. III. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEPOSIT THE CAPITAL GA IN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSETS IN A CAPITAL GA IN ACCOUNT SCHEME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN AS SPECIFIED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT BUT THE ASSESSEE FA ILED TO DO SO. IV. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IT WAS ALSO OBSERVE D THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F HAD BEEN WRONGLY COMPUTED FOR RS. 15 LACS AS SUCH IT WORKS OUT TO RS. 14.45 LACS ONLY (RS.15, 00,000 RS.1,10,00,000 1,06,96,151) ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 11 - IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.15,00,000/- AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD. C IT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT HE HA D CONSTRUCTED THE HOUSE WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSETS. THEREFORE, HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS P AID SERVICE TAX TO SHREEJI VILLAS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE. T HE ASSESSEE ALSO ENCLOSED THE COPY OF SERVICE TAX RECEIPTS. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 8. FINDING I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER BY THE AO AND SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE REGARD. THE AO HAS BROUGHT OUT FACTS IN PARA 4.3 AN D 4.4 (SUPRA). THE AO IS FACTUALLY CORRECT IN GIVING A FI NDING THAT IT WAS ONLY A PLOT WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT SUBMITTED ANY COGENT EVIDENC ES I SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT IT WAS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. FU RTHER, NOR ANY EVIDENCE FURNISHED TO STATE THAT UNUTILIZED PORTION WAS INVESTED IN CAPITAL GAIN BOND TO CLAIM EXEMPTION. THE SUBMISSIO N MADE BY THE APPELLANT NO WAY REBUT THE FACTUAL FINDING BY T HE AO. THIS GROUND ALSO IS DISMISSED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 12 - THE LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD INVESTED IN THE PLOT OF LAND AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE FOR RS.32,73,700/- WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSETS. THE LD. AR ALSO CLAIMED THAT IF ASSESSEE FAILS TO C ONSTRUCT THE HOUSE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME, THEN THE SAME WOULD BE T AXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH ASSESSEE DEFAULTS AS PER THE PROVISION OF SEC TION 54F OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING ANY DISAL LOWANCE U/S 54F OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF LAND. THE PURCHASE OF LAND IS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS REQUIRED TO DEPOSIT IN THE CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME ACCOUNT BEFORE T HE DUE DATE OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN AS SPECIFIED U/S 139(1) OF THE AC T. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. THEREFORE, NO DEDUCTION U/S 54F CA N BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A PIECE OF LAND FOR RS.1,10,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF SUCH PIECE OF LAND HAS EARNED LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN INCOME FOR R S.1,06,96,151/- ONLY. THE NECESSARY DETAILS OF CAPITAL GAIN INCOME AND DE DUCTION CLAIMED U/S 54EC AND 54F OF THE ACT STANDS AS UNDER: ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 13 - THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F FOR RS.15,00 ,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF LAND. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE FIND RELEVAN T AND IMPORTANT TO REPRODUCE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: SALE VALUE OF LAND (SALE ON 20/03/2012) 1,10,00,00 0 LESS : INDEX COST OF PURCHASE LAND PURCHASE ON 22/03/1984 FOR RS. 44900 INDEX COST IS 44900 785/116 303849 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN 1,06,96,151 LESS : EXEMPTION U/S 54EC BOND PURCHASE ON 31/03/2012 U/S 54EC BOND PURCHASE ON 30/04/2012 50,00,000/- 50,00,000/- 1,00,00,000/- LESS : EXEMPTION U/S 54F PURCHASE OF RESIDENT HOUSE 06/04/2011 CH NO. 116781 1500000 LAND 25/03/2013 CH NO. 756125 325000 LAND 25/03/2013 WITHDRAWAL FROM BANKD 100000 STAMP DUTY 03/01/2012 WITHDRAWAL 1150000 CONSTRUCTION 15/03/2013 WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK 50000 CONSTRUCTION 29/03/2013 CH NO.756126 100000 CONSTRUCTION 25/03/2013 CH NO.756127 48700 SERVICE TAX ON CONSTRUCTION TOTAL AMOUNT PAID FOR RESIDENT HOUSE 3273700 696151 (MAXIMUM UPTO CAPITAL GAIN) TAXABLE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN NIL ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 14 - [ CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF CERTAIN CAPITAL ASSETS NOT TO BE CHARGED IN CASE OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. 1 54F. (1) 2 [SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (4), WHE RE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY], THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF ANY LO NG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET, NOT BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE (HEREAFTER IN THIS SE CTION REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET), AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PER IOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR 3 [TWO YEARS] AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER T OOK PLACE PURCHASED, OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AF TER THAT DATE CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE NEW ASSET), THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE DEALT WIT H IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS T O SAY, (A) IF THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET IS NOT LESS THAN THE NET CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, THE WHOLE OF SUCH CA PITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 ; (B) IF THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET IS LESS THAN THE NET CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, SO MUCH OF THE CAPIT AL GAIN AS BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN THE SAME PROPORTION A S THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET BEARS TO THE NET CONSIDERATION, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 : A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISION REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE IF FAILED TO INVEST WITHIN THE TIME AS SPECIFIED UNDER THE PR OVISION OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT THEN HE WILL BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/ S 54F OF THE ACT PROPORTIONATELY. IT IS NOT UNDISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED IN CLAIMING THE EXEMPTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT, WHICH WE HAVE DECIDE D IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA NO. 6 OF THIS ORDER. NOW THE DIS PUTE FOR OUR ADJUDICATION ARISES DEDUCTION U/S 54F FOR RS. 6,96, 151/- ONLY. ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 15 - THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHAS ED A PIECE OF LAND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME AND THE ASSESSEE ON SUCH PIECE OF LAND IS REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT THE HOUSE WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL CAPITAL ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE H AS COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AS EVIDENT FR OM THE ORDER OF AO, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY COMPLETION CERTIFIC ATE OF THE SAID RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WHICH HE WAS CLAIMED WAS CONSTRUC TED WITHIN 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE COMPLETED BUNGLOW AND THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPTS PAI D TO MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES, NADIAD. FROM THE ABOVE, THERE REMAINS NO AMBIGUITY THAT CON STRUCTION WAS COMPLETED WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF 3 YEARS. H OWEVER, THE AO ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEPOSITED ANY AMO UNT TO THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF INC OME TAX RETURN. IN THIS REGARD, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THE MOST CAN DEPOSIT THE ENTIRE SALE CONSTRUCTION OF RS.1,10,00,000/- TO THE INCOME TAX CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME. BUT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CAS E HAS ALREADY INVESTED RS.1,00,00,000/- IN THE BONDS OF NHAI ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INVEST ED IN THE PIECE OF THE PLOT OF LAND FOR RS.15,00,000/ DURING THE SPECIFIED TIME. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY MADE THE REQUISITE IN VESTMENT EXCEEDING RS.1,10,00,000/-. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIB LE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT ON THE ELIGIBLE AMOUNT, WHICH HAS BEEN W ORKED OUT BY THE AO ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 16 - AT RS.14.45 LAKHS AS EVIDENT FROM HIS ORDER. THE RE LEVANT EXTRACT IS REPRODUCED BELOW: CLEARLY, THE NEW ASSET IN THIS CASE COST RS.15,00, 000/-. THE NET CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN RELATION TO THE ORIGINAL ASSET WAS RS.1,10,00,000/- AND THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING TO T HE ASSESSEE WAS RS.1,06,96,151/-. VERY CLEARLY SECTION 54F(1)(B) WO ULD HAVE APPLIED FOR COMPUTING THE ALLOWABLE BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. TH E SAME CAN BE WORKED OUT AS RS.15,00,000/RS.1,10,00,000 1,06,96 ,151 = RS. 14.45 LACS AND NOT RS. 15 LACS WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE. THUS FROM THE ABOVE, WE NOTE THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO DEPOSIT ANY AMOUNT UNDER THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME. IN HO LDING SO WE FIND SUPPORT & GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KAR ANATKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K. RAMACHANDRA RAO REPORTED IN 56 TAXMANN.COM 163 WHERE IN THE FOLLOWING QUESTION WAS RAISED AND ADJUDICATED: (2) WHEN THE ASSESSEE INVESTS THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER CAN BE DENIED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F ON THE GROUND THAT HE DID NOT DEPOSIT THE SAID AMOUNT IN CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SC HEME BEFORE THE DUE D ATE PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE IT ACT?' THE ABOVE QUESTION OF LAW WAS ADJUDICATED AS UNDER: 4.1 RE.QUESTION NO.2 : 'AS IS CLEAR FROM SUB-SECTION (4) IN THE EVENT OF T HE ASSESSEE NOT INVESTING THE CAPITAL GAINS EITHER IN PURCHASING THE RESIDENT IAL HOUSE OR IN CONSTRUCTING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THE PERIOD STIPULATED IN SECTION 54F(1), IF THE ASSESSEE WANTS THE BENEFIT OF SECTIO N 54F, THEN HE SHOULD DEPOSIT THE SAID CAPITAL GAINS IN AN ACCOUNT WHICH IS DULY NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. IN OTHER WORDS IF HE WANT OF CL AIM EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX BY RETAINING THE CASH, THEN T HE SAID AMOUNT IS TO BE INVESTED IN THE SAID ACCOUNT. IF THE INTENTION IS N OT TO RETAIN CASH BUT TO INVEST IN CONSTRUCTION OR ANY PURCHASE OF THE PROPE RTY AND IF SUCH INVESTMENT IS MADE WITHIN THE PERIOD STIPULATED THE REIN, THEN SECTION ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 17 - 54F(4) IS NOT AT ALL ATTRACTED AND THEREFORE THE CO NTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS STIPULATED AND THEREFORE, HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT EVEN T HOUGH HE HAS INVESTED THE MONEY IN CONSTRUCTION IS ALSO NOT CORRECT.' 5. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS BOTH THE SUBSTANTIAL QUES TIONS OF LAW ARE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE, ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE MERIT IN ANY OF THE APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, A LL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE WE HOLD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 5 4F CAN BE MADE IN THE INSTANT CASE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEPOSIT OF MONEY IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN REVERSING THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HENCE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 16/07/2018 SD/- SD/- EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN L; L; L; L; (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 16/07/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO.2954/AHD/2015 SHRI TUSHAR VAS UDEVBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT. ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 18 - !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. &'( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 02/07/2018(DICTATION PAD 8 PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 04/07/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 10/07/2018 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