The ACIT, Circle-3, Surat V. M/s. Vishwanagar Corporation, Surat

ITA 3395/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6269 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL K PATEL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 80IB; 80IA; 12; 10

Judgement Text

ITA.NO.339 5/AHD/2009 . C.O. NO.20/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 006-07. 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH,AH MEDABAD. ( BEFORE SHRI T.K. SHARMA & SHRI A. K. GARODIA) I.T .A. NO.3395/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07) AND C.O. NO.20/AHD/2010 (ARISING OUT ITA N O.3395/AHD/2009) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, AAYAKAR BHAVAN. MAJURA GATE, SURAT. (APPELLANT) VS. M/S. VISHWANAGAR CORPORATION, S.NO. 639, B/H. BHULKA BHAVAN, ANAND MAHAL ROAD, ADAJAN, SURAT. (RESPONDENT) PAN: AADFV 9868 J APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL, SR. D.R . RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MEHUL K. PATEL. ( (( ( )/ )/)/ )/ ORDER PER: SHRI A.K. GARODIA,A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WHEREAS CRO SS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. BOTH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-II, SURAT DATED 18-9-2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE CROSS OBJECTION IS MERELY IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) A ND HENCE THE SAME IS NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA.NO.339 5/AHD/2009 . C.O. NO.20/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 006-07. 2 3. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PROPORTIONATE DIS ALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.7,22,135/- OUT OF INTEREST AND SALAR Y PAID TO PARTNERS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PROPORTIONATE DIS ALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF IMPACT FEE OF RS.12,61,240/- PAID TO SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR COVERING OF BALCONY. 4. REGARDING GROUND NO.1, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE A. O. HAD NOTED IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESS EE FIRM IS A BUILDER AND DEVELOPER AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTI ON WORK. THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED ONE CO MPLEX NAMELY SHREEJI ARCADE SHOPPING CENTER AND RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX KNOW N AS BUILDING A AND B. HE ALSO NOTED THAT LIKEWISE, THE ASSESSEE HAS AL SO CONSTRUCTED VISHWANAGAR CORPORATION PART-II COMPRISING OF BUILD ING C, D AND E WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX. THE A.O. HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB (10) IN THE CASE O F VISHWANAGAR PART-II. THEREAFTER IN PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS UNDERTAKEN TWO DIFFERENT PROJ ECTS IN THE NAME OF VISHWANAGAR PART-1 AND PART-2. THE A.O. HAS ALSO NO TED THAT THE ASSESSEE- FIRM IS MAINTAINING TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THESE PROJECTS. IT IS AGAIN NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT AS PER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF VISHWANAGAR PART-1,IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE- FIRM HAS CLAIM INTEREST OF RS. 20,07,118/- PAID TO PARTNERS AND RS.4 LAKHS AS SALARY TO PARTNERS BUT IN ITA.NO.339 5/AHD/2009 . C.O. NO.20/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 006-07. 3 THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF PART-II, THERE IS NO SUCH CLAIM. THE A.O. TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE PARTNERS HAD BEEN CONTRIBUTING EQ UAL TIME AND SUFFICIENT CAPITAL TO BOTH THE PROJECTS. THE A.O. ASKED THE AS SESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY INTEREST TO PARTNERS AND SALARY EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED TO RS.14,04,983/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST TO PARTNERS A ND RS.2.80 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY TO PARTNERS FOR THE PART-1 PROJEC T I.E. SHREEJI ARCADE AND BALANCE AMOUNT SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TOWARDS PART-2 O F THE PROJECT. IN REPLY, VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E THE A.O. BUT THE A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED AND HE HELD THAT DEDUCTION FROM I NCOME OF PART-1 OF THE PROJECT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST TO PARTNERS IS RESTR ICTED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14,04,983/- AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF INTEREST E XPENSES TO PARTNERS IS ADJUSTED TOWARDS INCOME OF PART-2 OF THE PROJECT AN D SIMILARLY, DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY TO PARTNERS IS RESTRICTED TO RS.2 .80 LAKHS FOR VISHWANAGAR PART-1 AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1.20 LAKHS IS A LLOWED AS EXPENSES FOR VISHWANAGAR CORPORATION PART-2. BEING AGGRIEVED, TH E ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND THE CIT (A) HAS DELETED THESE TWO DISALLOWANCES FROM INCOME OF PART-I PROJECT AND NOW , THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. REGARDING GROUND NO.2, THE FACTS ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED SMC BALCONY PREMIUM OF RS.25,38,993/-.THE A.O. HAS FURT HER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED COST OF GOODS AT RS.4,93,22,703/- OUT OF WHICH, RS.3,94,87,787/- WAS TRANSFERRED TO WIP ACCOUNT. TH E A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PROPORTIONATE BALC ONY PREMIUM CHARGES RS.12,61,240/- SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ITA.NO.339 5/AHD/2009 . C.O. NO.20/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 006-07. 4 ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. THAT BALCONY PREMIUM IS PA ID DURING THE YEAR FOR COVERING THE BALCONY AS PER THE RULES AND REGULATIO NS OF SMC AND NOT AS IMPACT FEES FOR ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION. THE A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED AND HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF SMC FEES EXPENSES OF RS.12,61,240/- IS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT SAID FEE IS FOR VIOL ATION RELATED TO COVERING BALCONY ONLY AND IS IN THE NATURE OF PENALTY OR FIN E PAID FOR VIOLATION OF LAW AND THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION UNDER THE I NCOME TAX ACT. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL ON BOTH ISSUES BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND LD. CIT (A) HAS D ELETED BOTH THESE DISALLOWANCES AND NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US ON BOTH THE ISSUES. 7. THE LD. D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESS MENT ORDER FOR BOTH THE ISSUES. REGARDING THE FIRST ISSUE, IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT AS PER SUB-SECTION 13 OF SECTION 80IB, THE PROVISIONS CONT AINED IN SUB-SECTION 5 AND SUB-SEC. 7 TO 12 OF SECTION 80IA ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IB ALSO. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVI SIONS OF SUB-SECTION 10 OF SECTION 80IA, THE A.O. IS EMPOWERED TO RE-COMPUTE T HE PROFIT OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OR 80IB AND HE MAY COMPUTE THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS AS MAY BE REASONABLE TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND HENCE, ACTION OF THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED AND SHOULD BE APPROVED. 8. AS AGAINST THIS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R . OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SECOND ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION ITA.NO.339 5/AHD/2009 . C.O. NO.20/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 006-07. 5 RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI PRAKASH RANCH HODJI PATEL IN ITA NO.1676/AHD/2009 DATED 28-8-2009. HE SUBMITTED A C OPY OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION BEFORE US AND POINTED OUT THAT IN THAT CAS E ALSO, THE DISPUTE WAS REGARDING THE PAYMENT MADE TO SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPO RATION (SMC) IN RESPECT OF CARRYING OUT CONSTRUCTION OF BALCONY AND IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE THAT PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SMC BEING FEES FOR COVERING BALCONY PREMIUM AFTER PRIOR PERMI SSION OF SMC WAS GRANTED AND HENCE, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF ANY LAW AND THEREFORE, DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE FOR SUCH PAYMENT. 9. REGARDING THE FIRST ISSUE, IT IS SUBMITTED BY HI M THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING SEPARATE ACCOUNTS FOR BOTH THE PROJECTS AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND SALARY TO PARTNERS WAS ONLY WITH REGARD PART-1 OF THE PROJECT SHREEJI ARCADE AND NO SUCH PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR PART-2 OF T HE PROJECT AND HENCE, NO PART OF INTEREST AND SALARY PAID TO PARTNERS IS RELATABLE TO PART-2 OF THE PROJECT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS A CCOUNT OF PART-1 OF THE PROJECT AVAILABLE ON PAGE 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK, INT EREST TO PARTNERS OF RS.20.07 LAKHS AND SALARY TO PARTNERS RS.4 LAKHS WE RE DEBITED. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BALANCE SHEET OF PART-1 OF PROJE CT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE-18 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IT CAN BE SEEN THAT PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT IS OF RS.306.16 LAKHS. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT P & L AC COUNT OF PART-2 OF THE PROJECT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE-33 OF THE PAPER BOOK A ND IT CAN BE SEEN THAT NO SUCH EXPENSES ARE DEBITED IN THIS PROFIT AND LOSS A CCOUNT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE BALANCE SHEET OF PART-2 OF THE PROJECT IS FILED ON PAGE-34 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE CAPITAL OF PARTNER S FOR THIS PROJECT IS RS.148.67 LAKHS ON WHICH INTEREST PAYMENT HAS NOT B EEN MADE BY THE FIRM ITA.NO.339 5/AHD/2009 . C.O. NO.20/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 006-07. 6 AND THEREFORE, NO PART OF INTEREST AND SALARY PAID TO PARTNERS IS ALLOCABLE TOWARDS PART-2 OF THE PROJECT. IN REPLY TO A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK CONTA INING COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AND POINTED OUT THAT REMUNERATION ALLOWABLE TO THE PARTNERS HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROFIT OF PART-1 A ND 2 BOTH. IN THE REJOINDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE D.R. OF THE REVENUE THAT TH E ASSESSEE-FIRM IS HAVING A JOINT BANK ACCOUNT AND IT HAS TO BE SEEN AS TO WH ETHER THE PARTNERS CAPITAL CREDITED IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR PART-1 OF THE PRO JECT WAS EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR PART-1 OF THE PROJECT ONLY AND THEN THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE ACCEPTED THAT NO PART OF INTEREST TO PARTNERS IS AL LOCABLE TOWARDS PART-2 OF THE PROJECT. REGARDING SALARY TO PARTNERS, IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT WHEN PROFIT OF BOTH PARTS WERE CONSIDERED FOR EXAMINING THE ALLOWA BILITY OF REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS, THE SAME HAS TO BE ALLOCATED TO BOTH THE PROJECTS AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE A.O. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT FIRST ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT (A ) OF HIS PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BOTH THE POSITIONS. I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE AO. THERE WERE TWO PROJECTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB (10) OF THE I.T ACT. THE INTEREST AND SALARY PAID TO THE PARTNERS WAS DEBITE D TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE OTHER PROJECT. THE AO OBJECTED TO IT WITHOUT CI TING ANY REASON, APART FROM OBSERVING THAT IT WAS DONE TO MITIGATE T HE FACTUM OF TAX LIABILITY. THE FACT OF THE MATTER WAS THAT, IF SUCH EXPENDITURES WERE TO BE CLAIMED IN THE PROJECT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/ S. 80IB (10), THEN THE DEDUCTION WOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO THAT EXTENT. I NSTEAD THE ITA.NO.339 5/AHD/2009 . C.O. NO.20/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 006-07. 7 ASSESSEE CLAIMED SUCH EXPENSES IN THE OTHER PROJECT . IT WAS CLEARLY A PART OF THE ASSESSEES TAX PLANNING WHICH WAS WITHI N THE FOUR CORNERS OF LAW. THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BE EN CONTESTED. NOR HAS ANY DOUBT BEEN RAISED ABOUT THE JUSTIFICATION O F SUCH PAYMENTS TO THE PARTNERS. IN SUCH A SCENARIO, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE AO TO ARBITRARILY RESTRICT THE SALARY AND INTEREST PAYMENTS TO THE SUM OF RS.7,22,135/- AS AG AINST THE INTEREST OF RS. 20,07,118/- AND THE SALARY OF RS.4 LAKHS CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE ENTIRE CLAIM. 11. FROM THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IT IS SEEN THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS PROCEEDED TO DECIDE ON THIS BA SIS ALONE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED INTEREST AND SALARY PAID TO THE PARTNER S TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE PROJECT-1 ONLY. IT IS BY NOW SETTLE D POSITION OF LAW THAT ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS NOT CONCLUSIVE AND HENC E, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. REGARDING REMUNERATION PAID TO THE PARTNERS, WE FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE WE FIND THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AS AVAILABLE ON PAGE-1 OF THE PAPER BOOK, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CONSIDERED PROFIT OF PART-1 OF THE PROJECT RS.18.80 LAKHS AND THE PROFIT OF THE PART-2 OF THE PROJECT RS.47.89 LAKHS TOTAL RS.66.69 LAKHS AND HAVE CLAIMED THAT THE REMUNERATI ON PAID BY THE FIRM TO THE PARTNERS OF RS.4 LAKHS IS ALLOWABLE. HENCE, TH E SAME HAS TO BE ALLOCATED TO BOTH THE PROJECTS IN A REASONABLE RATIO. THERE I S NO ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RATIO ADOPTED BY T HE AO FOR SUCH APPORTIONMENT IS NOT CORRECT AND HENCE, ON THIS ASP ECT, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE A.O. 12. REGARDING INTEREST ASPECT OF GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE, WE FIND THAT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA.NO.339 5/AHD/2009 . C.O. NO.20/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 006-07. 8 CREDITED CERTAIN PORTION OF PARTNERS CAPITAL TO TH E PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN PROJECT-1 BUT THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR IS THIS, THAT BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS COMMON AND HENCE, IT IS TO BE SEEN AS TO WHETHER THE CAPITAL CREDITED IN PART-1 OF THE PROJECT WERE USED EXCLUSI VELY FOR PART-1 OF THE PROJECT OR WHETHER THE SAME WERE USED FOR BOTH THE PROJECTS. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IF SUCH FUNDS WERE USED EXC LUSIVELY FOR PART-1 OF THE PROJECT THEN NO PART OF SUCH INTEREST PAID TO PARTN ERS CAN BE ALLOCATED TOWARDS PART-2 OF THE PROJECT BUT IF THERE IS MIXED USE OF SUCH FUNDS FOR BOTH THE PROJECTS, THEN APPORTIONMENT MADE BY THE A.O. IS JU STIFIED. HENCE, WE FEEL THAT THIS ISSUE SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A .O. FOR FRESH DECISION. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE I.E. REGARDING THE APPORTIONMENT OF INTEREST PAID TO PAR TNERS AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR FRESH DECIS ION. THE AO SHOULD PASS FRESH ORDER IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE CAN ESTABLISH THAT NO PART OF THE PARTNERS CAPITAL ON WHICH INTEREST PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WERE USED FOR PART-2 OF THE PROJECT T HEN NO PORTION OF THE INTEREST PAID SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TOWARDS PART-2 OF THE PROJECT AND IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SUCCEED IN ESTABLISHING THIS THEN DISALLOWANCE MAY BE MADE BY THE AO AS PER LAW. 13. GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA.NO.339 5/AHD/2009 . C.O. NO.20/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 006-07. 9 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30 - 06 - 2011. SD/- SD/- (T.K. SHARMA) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. DATED: 30 -06 - 2011. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-II, SURAT. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD. ITA.NO.339 5/AHD/2009 . C.O. NO.20/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 006-07. 10 1.DATE OF DICTATION 29 - 6 -2011 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 30 / 6 / 2011 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S 30 - 6 -2011. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 30 - 6 -2011 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 30 -6 -2011 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 3 0 - 6 -2011. 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..