The ITO,Patan Ward-4, Mehsana V. M/s. Bhanu Petroleum Corporation, Mehsana

ITA 3041/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6624 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S A BOHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 11.05.2011 DRAFTED ON: 12 .05.2011 ITA NO.3041/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER PATAN WARD-4 MEHSANA VS. M/S.BHANU PETROLEUM CORPORATION G/1 INDRAPRASTH FLAT JAIL ROAD MEHSANA PAN/GIR NO. : AAGFB 3695 J ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) AND CO NO.294/AHD/2009 A.Y.2006-07 M/S.BHANU PETROLEUM CORPN. VS. THE ITO MEHSANA PATAN WARD- 4,MEHSANA [CROSS OBJECTOR] [RESPONDE NT] REVENUE BY : SHRI S.A. BOHRA, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S.N. DIVATIA O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN CROSS OBJECTION ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-GAND HINAGAR DATED 16/09/2009 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. [A] REVENUES APPEAL 2. GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE G.P. ADDITION OF RS.12,01,627/-TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,50,00 0/-. ITA NO.3041/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.294/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 2 - 2.1. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, AT THE OUTSET, L D.DR MR.S.A.BOHRA HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S.144 OF THE ACT DATED 11/12/2008. THE ASSESSEE- FIRM IS RUNNING A PETROL PUMP, THEREFORE TRADING IN PETROL, DIESEL, OIL, ETC. THE AO HAS MENTIONED SEVERAL DATES OF HEARI NG GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICES HAVE D ULY BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED THA T DUE TO NON- ATTENDANCE A PENALTY U/S.271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WAS I MPOSED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CO-OPERATED, THEREFORE, SUMMON S U/S.131 TO ONE OF THE PARTNERS HAS ALSO BEEN ISSUED. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FIRST FEW PAGES OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER REFER TH E NON- ATTENDANCE, NON-COOPERATION AND NON-PRODUCTION OF B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE A BOVE GROUND, IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.801.09 LACS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN G ROSS PROFIT OF RS.16.27 LACS, THEREFORE, DECLARING GROSS PROFIT RA TE AT 2.30%. AS COMPARED TO THE PAST YEAR, ON TURNOVER OF RS.82.43 LACS GROSS PROFIT WAS DISCLOSED AT RS.5.77 LACS, THUS, THE GROSS PROF IT RATE WAS DISCLOSED AT 7%. AS PER AO, THERE WAS HUGE VARIATI ON AND DECLINE IN GROSS PROFIT OF 4.97% IN COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS YEA R WHICH WAS NOT EXPLAINED. IN THE ABSENCE OF PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VOUCHERS OR OTHER RELATED DOCUMENT, THE AO HAS FIRS T REJECTED THE ITA NO.3041/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.294/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 3 - ACCOUNTED VERSION BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND MADE AN ADDITION BY APPLYING FURTHER A RATE OF PROFIT AT 1.5% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER, CALCULATED AT RS.12,01, 627/- AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION WAS MADE. BEING AGGRIEVED THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS PASSED A CRYPTIC ORDER AND VID E PARAGRAPH NO.3.4 RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.1,50,000/- BY ASSIGNING THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- 3.4. THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. IT IS AN ADM ITTED FACT BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN PRESENTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ALTHOUGH T HE COMPARISON WITH THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF PRECEDING YEAR IS NOT VERY RELEVANT, THE APPELLANT HAVING WORKED ONLY FOR TWO MONTHS, THE FACT OF ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED ACCESS TO BOOKS CANNOT BE IGNORED. IT WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN BETTER IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COLLECTED SOME FACTS ABOUT ASSESSEES WORKING AND BROUGHT ON RECORD THE PATENT DEFECTS, YET EVEN AT THE APPELLANT STAGE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T BEEN ABLE TO JUSTIFY THE RESULT. THE FACT OF WASTAGE OF 5.64 % IN CASE OF DIESEL AND 4.6% IN CASE OF PETROL, WHICH WERE SUBMI TTED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ARE DEFI NITELY ON HIGHER SIDE THAN THE WASTAGE / EVAPORATION NORMS SE T BY THE OIL COMPANIES AS WELL AS THE DISTRICT AUTHORITIES U NDER THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT. INTERESTINGLY IN THE TA X AUDIT REPORT, THE WASTAGES HAVE NOT AT ALL BEEN SEPARATEL Y MENTIONED. AGAINST ALL THESE FACTORS, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS DECIDED TO INCREASE GROSS PROFIT BY ALMOST 8% O N THE BASIS OF WHATEVER POINTS HE RAISED. CLEARLY THIS WAS A DISPROPORTIONATE INCREASE. ITA NO.3041/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.294/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 4 - 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD.DR HAS STRONGLY OBJECTED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE EVEN WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO THO UGH THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.144 OF I.T. ACT. ON TH E OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE LD.AR MR.S .N.DIVATIA HAS PLEADED THAT THE RETURN WAS ACCOMPANIED BY THE ACCO UNTS DULY AUDITED AS PRESCRIBED U/S.44AB OF THE ACT, THEREFOR E, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE BOOK RESULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. THE LD.AR HAS PLEADED T HAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE AUDITED ACC OUNTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED BY THE AO, THEREFORE, DESERVES TO BE UPHEL D. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. WE HAVE ALSO PERU SED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF COM PILATION FILED BEFORE US. THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S.144 OF THE ACT SINCE THE AO HAD NO OPT ION BUT TO PROCEED EX-PARTE DUE TO NON-COOPERATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS FACT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DENIED THAT THERE WAS DECLINE IN THE GROSS PROFIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N COMPARING THE GROSS PROFIT DECLARED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SATISFACTORY REPLY FOR NON-PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS ALSO THE REASON FOR DECLINE IN PROFIT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT ITA NO.3041/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.294/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 5 - WAS EXPECTED FORM THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 46A OF I.T. RULES, 1962. IT IS WORTH TO MENTION AT THIS JUNCTURE AND IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER ADDITION OF CASH CREDIT THE LD .CIT(A) HAS GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT BY CALLING A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), RATHER STRANGE, THAT WHILE DECIDING TWO GROUNDS OF AN APPELLANT WHY A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR IN RESPECT OF ONE GR OUND AND NOT GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER GROUND. IN ANY CASE, THE REASON ASSIGNED BY THE LD.CIT(A) FOR GRANTING RELIEF IS ALSO NOT CONVINCING. MERELY BEC AUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS WORKED ONLY FOR TWO MONTHS IN THE PRECEDING ASS ESSMENT YEAR IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE O UGHT TO DECLINE IN RESPECT OF SAME COMMODITY IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR OF TWELVE MONTHS. THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION, I.E. SALE OF PET ROL AND DIESEL IS A COMMODITY WHICH IS SOLD AT A PARTICULAR PRICE, THER EFORE, THE PROFIT MARGIN IS ALWAYS FIXED AND DO NOT VARY BECAUSE OF V ARIATION IN THE WORKING DAYS. EVEN IF THE LD.CIT(A) WAS INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON APPRECIATION OF THE I NFORMATION FURNISHED, THEN BEFORE ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION IT WAS NECESSARY ON HIS PART TO CONFRONT THE AO WITH ALL THOSE EVIDENCE S FILED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT AN ADHOC RELIEF WAS GRANTED AND NO CONVINCING REASON WAS ADVANCED THAT WHY A PART RELIEF WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT- ITA NO.3041/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.294/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 6 - ASSESSEE A DECISION OF ITAT B BENCH AHMEDABAD PR ONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM CORPORATI ON REPORTED AT 44 SOT 45(AHD.) HAS BEEN CITED BUT THE SAID DECISIO N IS ALTOGETHER ON DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSES SEE HAS CO-OPERATED WITH THE PROCEEDINGS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. THEREFORE, THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THUS WARRANT TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE STAGE OF ASSESSING O FFICER, SO THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CAN BE VERIFIED AND THE CORREC T INCOME BE ASSESSED . THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO ATTEND WITH-OUT FAIL THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE, AS REQUIRED, FOR COMPLETION OF ASSE SSMENT. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER: 2. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING TH E ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AMOUNTI NG TO RS.5,00,000/-. 6.1. THE AO HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN C ERTAIN DEPOSITS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AMOUNTING TO RS .24,22,104/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH T HE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS. THE ASSE SSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE DETAILS. SINCE THE WHEREABOUTS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE DEPOSITORS COULD NOT BE VERIFIED THEREFORE THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5 LACS BY INVOKING THE PR OVISIONS OF ITA NO.3041/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.294/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 7 - SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 7. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT AND THEREAFTER HELD AS UNDER:- 4.5. THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND ON THE BAS IS OF MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD AS WELL THE ARGUMENTS CA NVASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, IN MY VIEW, THE ADDITION IS N OT CALLED. THE BASIS REASON FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IS THE APP ELLANT BEING UNABLE TO PRODUCE CONFIRMATIONS. HOWEVER, TH E APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED THE SAME BEFORE ME AND MATTE R WAS REFERRED BACK U/R.46A FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DO NECESSARY VERIFICATION. AS REPRODUCED ABOVE THE AS SESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 06/05/2009 HAS JUST R ESTATED WHATEVER HE HAD DONE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT REFERENCE U/R.46A WAS A FRESH OPPO RTUNITY FOR HIM TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE; HE COULD HAVE EXAMINE D LENDER, HE COULD HAVE EXAMINED ASSESSEES BOOKS ETC. ETC. THE ONLY OBJECTION THAT HE HAD THAT THESE MONIES WERE NOT RO UTED THROUGH THE APPELLANTS ACCOUNT WAS FOUND TO BE UNF OUNDED. AS ALREADY STATED THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF BA NK ACCOUNT NO.025705500724 OF ICICI BANK WHERE THE SUM OF RS.2,00,000/- FROM DEVARSHI BUNGLOWS HAS BEEN DEPOS ITED ON 23/02/2006 AND A SUM OF RS.3,00,000/- FORM M/S.MAA TRADING HAS BEEN DEPOSITED ON 21/01/2006. SUCH INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE IN THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED WITH ASSESSING OFFICER. IN ANY CASE U/R.46A, HE COULD HAVE CALLED SUCH INFORMA TION FROM ASSESSEE OR BANKS WHICH HE THOUGHT APPROPRIATE. OT HERWISE, HE COULD NOT HAVE EXPECTED APPELLANT TO PROVE THE N EGATIVE. HAVING NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD DURING TH E REFERENCE U/R.46A, THE APPELLANTS POSITION GETS AC CEPTED AUTOMATICALLY. ITA NO.3041/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.294/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 8 - 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PARTIES APPEARI NG BEFORE US HAVE RESPECTIVELY RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A). WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH THE LD.C IT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF. ON ONE HAND, HE HAS EXPRESSED HIS APPREHENSION THAT ONCE AN OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO AO UNDER RULE 46 A, HE COULD HAVE EXAMINED THE LENDER AND ALSO COULD HAVE EXAMIN ED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND H E HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT ON DUE EXAMINATION IT WAS FOUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.68 DID NOT APPLY ON THIS CASE. I N RESPECT OF THE DEPOSITS ONE BY M/S.DEVARSHI BANGALOWS OF RS.2 LACS AND THE OTHER BY M/S.MAA TRADING CO. OF RS.3 LACS THE EVIDENCES W ERE INSUFFICIENT AND INVESTIGATION WAS REQUIRED. IN THE REMAND REPOR T THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION AND CONTRA ACCOUNTS THOUGH OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS JUSTIFIABLE TO RES TORE THIS GROUND AS WELL BACK TO THE STAGE OF AO TO DECIDE AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF LAW AND SIMULTANEOUSLY WE HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE PROCEEDINGS BY FURNISHING ALL THE EVIDENCES AS PRESCRIBED U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ITA NO.3041/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.294/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 9 - ASSESSEES CO NO.294/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 (ARI SING OUT OF ITA NO.3041/AHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07) 9. FIRST FEW GROUNDS OF THE CROSS OBJECTOR ARE AG AINST THE CONFIRMATION OF EX-PARTE DECISION MADE U/S.144 OF THE I.T. ACT, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1.1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACT S IN UPHOLDING THE EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.144 WAS JUSTIFIED. 1.2. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ASSTT.MADE U/S.144. 2.1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS. 2.2. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE REJECTIO N OF BOOKS. 9.1. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED TO RESTORE THE ISSUE B ACK TO THE STAGE OF AO WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THE REFORE, THE GROUNDS OF THE CROSS OBJECTOR DEEMED TO HAVE ALREAD Y BEEN ALLOWED, ITA NO.3041/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.294/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 10 - BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE SHALL ALSO GET THE DUE OPPORTU NITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE AFRESH AND CAN FURNISH THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPOR T OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE INCOME DECLARED. AS FAR AS TH E CROSS OBJECTION IN RESPECT OF PART RELIEF IN GP ADDITION, THE ISSUE HA S TO BE DECIDED DE NOVO BEING SENT BACK FOR RE-CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE THI S PART OF THE CROSS OBJECTION ALSO DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSE SSEES CROSS OBJECTION BOTH ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 TH MAY 2011. SD/- SD/- ( D.C. AGRAWAL) ( MUKUL KR. SH RAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R AHMEDABAD; DATED 13/ 05 /2011 T.C. NAIR, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-GANDHINAGAR 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION.. 11.05.2011 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 12.05.2011 OTHER MEMBER ITA NO.3041/AHD/2009 (BY REVENUE) & CO NO.294/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 11 - 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.S 13/5/2011 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 13/5/2011 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