M/s. Gopal Builders, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Surat

ITA 31/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 101326 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: A P NANAVATY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Wrong claim
• Section: 260A; 246; 263; 63

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHM EDABAD , (BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. & SHRI KUL BHARA T, J.M.) ( , !'# $ , ! %& ) ITA NO. 31/AHD/2012 (ASSESSM ENT YEAR: 2003-04) M/S. GOPAL BUILDERS G/2, AAVISHKAR APARTMENTS, BEHIND WATER TANK, ADAJAN ROAD, NEAR SARDAR BRIDGE, SURAT. VS. A.O. WARD-6(2), SURAT PAN NO. AACFG2281R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A. P. NANAVATY, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SONIA KUMAR, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 10/03/ 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/05/2016 ( )/ ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV, SURAT, DATED 27.09.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 CO NFIRMING PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT . ITA NO.31/AHD/12 A.Y. 2003-04 (M/S. GOPAL BUILDERS VS. A.O.) 2 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER: 3. ASSESSEE IS PARTNERSHIP FIRM STATED TO BE ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND. ASS ESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2003-04 ON 30.03.2005 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME AT RS.59,525/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER A SSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 28.02.2006 A ND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 10,66,390/- INTER ALIA BY MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 07.07.2006 UPHELD THE ORDER OF A.O. AND DISMISSED T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AO IN THE MEANWHILE ISSUED NOTICE U/S.274 R.W.S.271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 28/2/2006 AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONS E TO WHICH ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OR SUPPRESS ION OF INCOME AND, THEREFORE, NO PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO AS HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASS ESSEE WAS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT A SSESSEE HAD MADE WRONG CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE QUANTUM APPEA L FILED BY ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY HONBLE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 14/09/20 09. HE ACCORDINGLY LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.3,70,022/- U/S.271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 30/4/2010. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER OF A.O. , ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 27.09.20 11 (IN APPEAL NO. CAS- IV/47/10-11) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE AND U PHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND S: 1. THE LD. C.I.T.(A) -IV HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.3,70,000/-. ITA NO.31/AHD/12 A.Y. 2003-04 (M/S. GOPAL BUILDERS VS. A.O.) 3 2. THE LD. C.I.T.(A) -IV HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE T HAT THERE IS NO FINDING OF FALSE MATERIAL FACTS OR FRAUD OR CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT THE REBY FINDING OF CONCEALMENT IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF APPELLANT U.S. 8 0 IB(10) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 3. THE LD. C.I.T.(A) -IV HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT PENALTY IS TIME BARRED IN TERMS OF PROVISO TO SEC. 275(1)(A) OF THE I.T.ACT,1 961 APPELLATE ORDER OF PENALTY HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON 21 ST JULY, 2007 AND LAST DATE OF PASSING OF PENALTY ORDER SHALL BE FROM END OF FINANCIAL YEAR BEING 31S TMARCH,2008 AND ONE YEAR FROM 31 ST MARCH, 2008 SHALL BE 31 ST MARCH, 2009. AND ACTUAL DATE OF PASSING OF ORDER OF PENALTY IS 30 TH APRIL, 2010. 4. LD. C.I.T.(A) -IV HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS NO FINDING OF CONCEALMENT EXCEPT REJECTION OF CLAIM U.S. 80 IB (1 0) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 5. LD. C.I.T.(A) -IV HAS ERRED IN PROCEEDING FOR LE VY OF PENALTY U.S. 271 (1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT. 1961 TWO TIMES BY ISSUANCE OF SHOW C AUSE NOTICE TWO TIMES AND ONE TIME PENALTY WAS NOT LEVIED AND SECOND TIME PEN ALTY OF RS,3,70,000/- HAS BEEN LEVIED. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EARLIER GROUNDS, LD. C.I.T. (A) -IV HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT PENALTY IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO ITS GRAVITY OF CONCEALMENT, IF ANY. 7. LD. C.I.T.(A) -IV HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE SCOPE OF JUDGEMENT IN CASE OF C.I.T. V/S RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (2010) 322 I. T.R. 158 (SC) AND OTHER JUDGEMENTS OF SUPREME COURT. 4. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THA T THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS, BUT THE SOLITARY ISSUE WHI CH NEEDS ADJUDICATION IS WITH RESPECT TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT . HE SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY AO IN THE PRESENT CASE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED BY A.O. ON 30.04.2 010, WHICH WAS BEYOND THE PERIOD STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 275 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE PENALTY ORDER NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION , HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT, WHIC H WAS DENIED TO IT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION WOULD NOT A UTOMATICALLY LEAD TO LEVY OF PENALTY AND THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT ITA NO.31/AHD/12 A.Y. 2003-04 (M/S. GOPAL BUILDERS VS. A.O.) 4 AND SEPARATE. HE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DE CISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158. LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF A. O. AND LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ISSUE IS ABOUT THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. BEFORE US, THE LD.AR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE A OS ORDER WHEREBY HE HAS LEVIED PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) IS BARRED BY LIMITATIO N IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 275 OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER NE EDS TO BE QUASHED. TO DECIDE ON THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO BE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 275 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- SECTION 275 BAR OF LIMITATION FOR IMPOSING PENALTIE S. [(1)] NO ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER THIS CHAPT ER SHALL BE PASSED [(A) IN A CASE WHERE THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT OR OTH ER ORDER IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF AN APPEAL TO THE [* * * * *] [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] (APPEALS) UNDER SECTI ON 246 [OR SECTION 246A] OR AN APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNA L UNDER SECTION 253, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHIC H THE PROCEEDINGS, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH ACTION FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED, ARE COMPLETED, OR SIX MONTHS FROM THE EN D OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER OF [THE [* * * * *] [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS RECEIVED BY THE [ PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER] OR [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER], WHICHEVER PERIOD EXPIRES LATER; [PROVIDED THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT OR OTHER ORDER IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF AN APPEAL TO THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] (APPEALS) UNDER SECTI ON 246 OR SECTION 246A, AND THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] (APPEALS) PASSES THE ORDER ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2003 DISPOSING OF SUCH APPEAL, AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY SHALL BE PASSED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH TH E PROCEEDINGS, IN ITA NO.31/AHD/12 A.Y. 2003-04 (M/S. GOPAL BUILDERS VS. A.O.) 5 THE COURSE OF WHICH ACTION FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALT Y HAS BEEN INITIATED, ARE COMPLETED, OR WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM T HE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] (APPEALS) IS RECEIVED BY THE [PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER] OR [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER], WHICHEVER IS LATER;] (B) IN A CASE, WHERE THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT OR OTH ER ORDER IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 263, [OR SECTION 264], AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH SUCH ORDER OF REVISION IS PASSED; (C) IN ANY OTHER CASE, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE FINA NCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH ACTION FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED, ARE COMPLETED, OR SIX M ONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH ACTION FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS INITIATED, WHICHEVER PERIOD EXPIRES LATER.] [(1A) IN A CASE WHERE THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT OR OT HER ORDER IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF AN APPEAL TO THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] (APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 246 OR SECTIO N 246A OR AN APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 253 OR AN APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 260A OR AN APPEAL TO T HE SUPREME COURT UNDER SECTION 261 OR REVISION UNDER SECTION 2 63 OR SECTION 264 AND AN ORDER IMPOSING OR ENHANCING OR REDUCING OR CANCELLING PENALTY OR DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE IMPOSIT ION OF PENALTY IS PASSED BEFORE THE ORDER OF THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] (APPEALS) OR THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL O R THE HIGH COURT OR THE SUPREME COURT IS RECEIVED BY THE [ PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER] OR THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] OR THE ORDER OF REVIS ION UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED, AN ORDER IMPO SING OR ENHANCING OR REDUCING OR CANCELLING PENALTY OR DROP PING THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY MAY BE PA SSED ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT AS REVISED BY GIVING EFFECT TO SUCH ORDER OF THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] (APPEALS) OR, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OR THE HIGH COURT, OR THE SUPREM E COURT OR ORDER OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264: PROVIDED THAT NO ORDER OF IMPOSING OR ENHANCING OR REDUCING OR CANCELLING PENALTY OR DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY SHALL BE PASSED ITA NO.31/AHD/12 A.Y. 2003-04 (M/S. GOPAL BUILDERS VS. A.O.) 6 (A) UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HEARD, OR HAS BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD; (B) AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] (APPEALS) OR THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OR THE HIGH COU RT OR THE SUPREME COURT IS RECEIVED BY THE [PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER] OR THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] OR THE ORDER OF REVISION UNDER SECTIO N 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 274 SHALL APPLY IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER IMPOSING OR ENHANCING OR REDUCING PENALTY UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION.] [(2) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION AS THEY STOOD I MMEDIATELY BEFORE THEIR AMENDMENT BY THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987 (4 OF 1988), SHALL APPLY TO AND IN RELATION TO ANY ACT ION INITIATED FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON OR BEFORE THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 1989.] 5.1. TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT GROUND OF T HE APPEAL, THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF SECTION WHICH IS APPLICABLE IS SECTION 275(1)(A) AND THE PROVISO. 5.2. A BARE READING OF THE PROVISO TO S.275(1)(A) S HOWS THAT WHERE THE ORDER OR OTHER ORDER IS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL TO CIT( A) U/S.246 OR S.246A AND THAT CIT(A) PASSES THE ORDER DISPOSING THE APPEAL ON OR AFTER 1 ST JUNE-2003, THEN THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY SHALL BE PASSED BEFORE THE E XPIRY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURSE OF WHICH ACTION FOR PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED ARE COMPLETED OR WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS RECEIVED BY PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER WHICHEVER IS LATER. THUS, THE TIME LI MIT PRESCRIBED U/S.275(1)(C) FOR PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER IS BEFORE EXPIRY OF FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH ACTION ITA NO.31/AHD/12 A.Y. 2003-04 (M/S. GOPAL BUILDERS VS. A.O.) 7 FOR PENALTY IS INITIATED OR WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM TH E END OF FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS RECEIVED. 5.3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IN THE LIGHT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 275(1)(A) OF THE ACT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ORDER FOR AY 2003-04 U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 28/2/2006. AGAINST THE OR DER PASSED U/S.143(3) APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE CIT(A) . CIT(A) PASSED ORDER ON 7/7/2006 AND THE PENALTY ORDER U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED BY THE AO ON 30/4/2010. AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 275(1)(A), SINCE THE ORDER U/S.1 43(3) WAS PASSED ON 28/2/2006, THE EXPIRY OF FINANCIAL YEAR ON THE BAS IS OF WHICH THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED, ENDED ON 31 ST MARCH-2006. BEFORE US, IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE APP ELLATE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED ON 21 ST JULY-2007 AND, THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THAT DATE, THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE APPELLATE ORDER WAS RECEIVED ENDE D ON 31 ST MARCH-2008 AND, THEREFORE, THE ONE YEAR TIME LIMIT, FROM THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED , ENDED ON 31 ST MARCH-2009. THE LATER OF THE TWO DATES (31 ST MARCH-2006 BEING THE DATE OF EXPIRY OF FINANCIAL YEAR OF THE ORDER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PENAL BY PROCEEDINGS WERE INI TIATED AND 31 ST MARCH-2009, BEING THE LAST DATE OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF YEA R IN WHICH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED) BEING 31 ST MARCH-2009 AND, THEREFORE, THE LAST DATE BY WHICH THE PENALTY ORDER U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT SH OULD HAVE BEEN PASSED WAS 31 ST MARCH-2009. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS S EEN THAT THE ORDER U/S.271(1)(C) HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE AO ON 30 TH APRIL-2010 WHICH IS BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S.275(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 5.4. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE RECEI VING DATE OF ORDER OF CIT(A) AS STATED BY ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOR HAS PRODUCED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER OF C IT(A) WAS RECEIVED BY ITA NO.31/AHD/12 A.Y. 2003-04 (M/S. GOPAL BUILDERS VS. A.O.) 8 COMMISSIONER ON SUCH DATE WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT TH E ORDER OF PENALTY PASSED BY AO WAS WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER TH E ACT. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PENALTY OR DER PASSED U/S.271(1)(C) IS BEYOND THE TIME STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 275(1)(A) OF THE ACT AND WE, THEREFORE, QUASH THE ORDER OF THE AO FOR IMPOSING PENALTY BEIN G TIME-BARRED. SINCE IT IS HELD THAT THE ORDER IS TIME-BARRED BY LIMITATION, W E ARE NOT ADJUDICATING ON THE MERITS OF PENATY ORDER. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19 / 05 / 2016 SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 19/05/2016 S K SINHA/TC NAIR COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) IV SURAT.4. THE CIT CONCERNED . 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1.DATE OF DICTATION 10.03.2016 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E OTHER MEMBER 11 -03-2016/17.5.16 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 DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 19.5. 16 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 19.5.16 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