Shri Rameshbhai Ravjibhai Dobaria, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT, Circle-12, Ahmedabad

ITA 357/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5788 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL KUMAR
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Wrong claim; Revised return; Ignorance of law

Judgement Text

, ,LK ,LK,LK ,LK- -- -,E ,E,E ,E- -- -LH LHLH LH , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER !# I.T.A. NO. 357/AHD/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) RAMESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI DOBARIA PROP. OF AKASH SPINTEX, 4, MAMTA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NEAR GANDHI LAPROSY, AMRAIWADI, AHMEDABAD - 380026 # VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -12 AHMEDABAD $ # % & # PAN/GIR NO. : ADGPP 7842 Q ( !$' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' # RESPONDENT ) !$') # APPELLANT BY : MS. ARTI N. SHAH, AR ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAHUL KUMAR, SR. DR + ,*-. / DATE OF HEARING 05/04/2017 /012*-. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29/05/2017 3# O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR LEVY OF PENAL TY AND DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI, AHMEDABAD, DATED 27/11/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12. ITA NO. 357/AHD /2016 RAMESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI DOBARIA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 2 - 2. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEA L: THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.4,79,464/- OUT OF RS.10,00,000/- LEVIED U/S. 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- IN THIS CASE, ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 24.03.2014, DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.33,00 ,260/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.25,69,120/- (AS PER REVISED R ETURN). PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE ALSO INI TIATED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND NOTICE U/S.274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 24.03,2014 AND DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT. AS THE PROCEEDINGS WERE GET TING BARRED BY LIMITATION OF TIME, A FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 28.08.2014 AND ON 09.09.2014 AND DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN REPL Y TO THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED, THE ASSESSEE STATED AS UNDER:- [1] SIR, YOUR HONORABLE SIR, HAVE MADE THE ADDITIO N OF RS.7,31,142/- REGARDING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THE SAME WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN OUR INCOME. SIR, THE CONTENTION OF HIDING THE INCOME AS WELL AS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS IS BASICALLY WRONG. SIR, IT WAS A GENUINE MISTAKE DONE BY THE PROFESSIO NAL ACCOUNTANT AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES, SO IT IS CL EAR AT OUR SITE THAT WE HAD RECORDED THE ENTRIES IN OUR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ITA NO. 357/AHD /2016 RAMESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI DOBARIA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 3 - WHERE THERE IS A GENUINE MISTAKE, PENALTY FOR CONCE ALMENT IS NOT LEVIABLE : IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE COSE OF CIT VS. PITAMBARADS DULICHOND REPORTED AT 273 ITR 271 THAT WERE THE MISTAKE WAS MADE BY THE MUNIM AND THERE WA S NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT IT WAS DONE WITH THE CONSE NT OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTNER, THERE WAS NO REASON TO SUSTAIN THE PEN ALTY FOR CONCEALMENT. WHERE COMPLETE PARTICULARS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, P ENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT IS NOT LEVIABLE : THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HORI OM ASHOK KUMAR REPORTED AT 295 ITR 507 HELD THAT WERE THE ASSESSES HAD DISCLOSED THE PARTICULARS OF SALE OF MACHINERY AND PLOT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BUT INCOME FROM THE SAME WA S NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT COULD NOT BE LEVIED AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CONCEALED ANY FACTS, THIS DECISION OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DECISION OF TH E ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SANIA MIRZA(SUPRA ). SIR, LOOKING TO THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT OUR INTE NTION IS NOT TO HIDE ANY DETAILS AND / OR ANY PARTICULARS THAT PLEASE NOTE. [2] SIR, YOUR HONORABLE SIR, HAVE MADE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE IN TAX CALCULATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN DISCLOSED IN OUR INCOME AND TAX PAID ON ABOVE. SIR, FROM THE ABOVE PARA, ITSELF SPEAK THAT THERE I S NO ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS IS THERE AS WELL AS NO ANY HIDING OF IN COME, AS WE HAD DISCLOSED THE SAME IN OUR RETURN OF INCOME AND ALRE ADY TAX PAID ON SUCH INCOME THAT PLEASE NOTE. SO, IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO ANY HIDING OF TAXABLE INCOME AS WELL AS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS THAT PLEASE NOTE. SIR, FROM THE ABOVE PARA IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO ANY INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TO AVOID ANY TAX AND /OR ANY PARTIC ULARS BUT IT CALLED A GENUINE MISTAKE DONE BY THE TAX PRACTITIONER AT THE TIME OF PREPARING THE RETURN. ITA NO. 357/AHD /2016 RAMESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI DOBARIA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 4 - FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THERE IS TWO TYPES OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN TAX AND THE TAX RATE AS WELL AS CALCUL ATION FOR BOTH THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS DIFFERENT AND DUE TO TH AT REASON THE MISTAKE WAS DONE BY THE TAX PRACTITIONER AT THE TIM E OF CALCULATING THE TAX. SIR, WE EXPLAIN THE CALCULATION FOR BOTH THE TYPES OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, BELOW: [1] SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES: SIR, SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SHARES IS TAXABLE A T SPECIAL TAX RATE @15% FLAT AND THERE IS NO ANY DEDUCTION IS AVAILABL E. SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS TOTALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE GROSS TOT AL INCOME. [2] SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OTHER THAN THE SALE OF SHARES SIR, SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OTHER THAN THE SALE OF SHARES IS CONSIDERED AS THE NORMAL TAX AND WAS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTIO N AS CLAIMED IN THE NORMAL INCOME. SIR, THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OTHER THAN SALE OF SHARE IS INCLUDED IN THE INCOME FROM OTHER HEAD THAN THE TAX IS CALCULAT ED I.E. THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS TAXED AS A NORMAL INCOME AND CHARGED THE TAX AS NORMAL RATE IN WHICH SLAB IT IS CHARGEABLE. SIR, FROM THE ABOVE EXPLANATION IT IS CLEAR THAT TH ERE IS A LOTS OF CHANCE FOR THE MISTAKE. IN OUR CASE WE WOULD LIKE TO INFOR M YOU THAT, AT THE TIME OF PREPARING THE RETURN OF INCOME, ENTRY OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARE DONE IN THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SHARES I NSTEAD OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OTHER THAN SHARES. NO CONCEALMENT FOR CHANGE IN HEAD OF INCOME : IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN ITS ORDER DATED 31/01/2013 IN THE CASE OF CROWN TRADELINKS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 2768 OF 2012 THAT WHERE THE TRANSACTION OF SHARE TRADING HAD BEEN DIS CLOSED AND THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM THE TRADING AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ITA NO. 357/AHD /2016 RAMESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI DOBARIA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 5 - AS WELL AS SPECULATION INCOME AND THE LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN WAS ULTIMATELY ASSESSED AS SPECULATION INCOME, THERE WA S NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AS PARTICULARS OF THE TRANSACTION HAD BEEN D ISCLOSED AND THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT SHORN TRANSACTIONS. SIR, FROM THE ABOVE EXPLANATIONS AND INFORMATION AN D JUDGMENT FROM HONORABLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH, IT IS CLEAR THAT T HE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TO HIDE ANY INCOME AND ANY PARTICUL ARS BUT THERE IS DATA ENTRY MISTAKE DONE BY THE TAX PRACTITIONER ONLY THA T PLEASE NOTE. SIR, LOOKING TO THE ABOVE FACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT, T HE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TO HIDE AND / OR AVOID ANY PARTICUL ARS IN HIS BOOKS ACCOUNTS BUT IS A GENUINE HUMAN MISTAKE. SIR, GO THROUGH THE SECTION 271(1)(C), THE SECTION ITSELF SPEAK THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED AND / OR PROVIDE ANY INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS/DETAILS/FORMATION AND THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS FIND OUT THE SAME, PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) LEVIED. SIR, IN OUR CASE YOUR HONORABLE SIR HAD NOT FOUND O UT ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS BUT THEY FOUND OUT ONLY WRONG ACCOUNTIN G ENTRIES FROM OUR BOOKS, SO IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT HID E ANY DETAILS IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. SIR, BASICALLY SECTION 271(1)(C) RELIED ON THE INTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO HIDE THE TAX AS WELL AS INCOME AND GOT THE BENEFIT, YOUR HONORABLE SIR HAS POWER TO CHARGE PENALTY FOR THE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE. SIR, IN OUR CASE THERE IS NO INTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE TO HIDE THE TAX AND INCOME AND HE DOESN'T GET ANY BENEFIT. HE RECORDED ALL THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES IN HIS BOOKS AS WELL AS PAID THE TAX AS HE IS LIABLE FOR. BUT DUE TO THE HUMAN MISTAKE I.E. AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE A CCOUNTING ENTRIES BY AN ACCOUNTANT AND CALCULATION MISTAKE OF TAX PRACTI TIONER AT THE TIME OF CALCULATING THE TAX. ITA NO. 357/AHD /2016 RAMESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI DOBARIA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 6 - SIR, ALSO THERE IS A GENERAL CLAUSE IN SECTION 271( 1)(C) IS THAT, IF THE MISTAKE DONE BY THE OTHER PARTIES AND DUE TO THAT R EASON THE TAXABLE INCOME RAISED AND ON THAT INCOME, PENALTY U/S. 271( 1)(C) IS CHARGED. NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED ON SUCH INCOME. 2. THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CAREFUL LY BEEN CONSIDERED, BUT THE SAME IS NOT FOUND TO BE CONVINCING. THE ASS ESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN SUPPOR T OF HIS ABOVE CONTENTIONS, HOWEVER, THE SAME WERE FOUND TO BE IRR ELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE PENALTY ORDER THAT IT WAS NOTICED THAT STCG OF RS.16,41,057/- HAS SHOWN ON SALE OF LAND. S UCH STCG WAS TAXABLE AT THE RATE OF 30%. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE H AD WORKED OUT THE TAX AT 15% INSTEAD OF APPLICABLE RATE OF 30%. DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN RESPONSE TO VARIOUS QUER IES RAISED IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER WAS NOTICED BY HIM ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT OF H IS BOGUS CLAIM, THE STCG INCOME WAS ORDERED TO BE TAXED AS PER THE RATE S STIPULATED. 4. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN STCG ON SALE OF PROPERTY, BEING LAND SITUATED AT SURVEY NO.131 AT NIKOL. THE SAID PROPER TY WAS PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 2007, BY THE ASSESSEE, ALONG WITH SHRI HAR ESHBHAI TALAVIA, HAVING 50% SHARE EACH. SUBSEQUENTLY, THROUGH BANAKH AT DATED 11.09.2008, 35% SHARE OF THE ABOVE LAND WAS TRANSFE RRED TO SHRI NILESHBHAI PANCHANI AND SHRI HITESHBHAI POLARA FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.10,23,600/- OUT OF THE ABOVE TRANSFERRED SHARE O F 35%, THE ASSESSEES SHARE WAS 25% AND HIS PARTNER SHRI HARESHBHAI TALAV IAS SHARE WAS 10%. (FINALLY, THE ASSESEE HAD, IN HIS POSITION, 25 % SHARE OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY). AS PER THE BANAKHAT DEED, THE ASSESSEE WAS TO RECEIVE RS.7,31,142/- AS THE VALUE OF HIS SHARE OF PROPERTY TRANSFERRED. AS THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE ON 11.09,2008, SUCH SALE PROCEE DS WERE REQUIRED TO BE OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE A.Y.2009-10, WHICH H E FAILED TO DO. MOREOVER, IN THE WORKING OF STCG FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REDUCED THE COST OF ACQUISITION TO THAT EXTENT. EITHER THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE OFFERED THE ENTIRE SALE CONSID ERATION IN THE YEAR OF ITA NO. 357/AHD /2016 RAMESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI DOBARIA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 7 - TRANSFER OR THAT MUCH SHARE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCE D FROM THE COST OF ASSET WHILE WORKING OUT STCG DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. AS IT WA S EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTENTIONALLY EXCLUDED THE RECEIPTS ON TRANSFER OF HIS 50% SHARE IN THE PROPERTY WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF IN COME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HAS ALSO NOT CARED TO REDUCE TH E COST OF THE PROPERTY TO THAT EXTENT WHILE WORKING OUT THE STCG IN THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION, I.E. A.Y. 2011-12, AN AMOUNT OF RS.7 ,31,142/- WAS REDUCED FROM THE COST OF THE PROPERTY AND AN ADDITI ON OF RS.7,31,142/- WAS MADE. 5. FURTHER, ON ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I T BECOMES CLEAR THAT IT IS A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. AS REGARDS THE TAX RATE TO BE ADOPTED, THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTENTIONALLY CHARGED THE TAX AT A LOWER RATE, IS EVIDENT FROM TH E FACT THAT EVEN IN THE REVISED RETURN FILED ON 07.01.2012, THE ASSESSEE HA D WORKED OUT THE TAX ON STCG AT 15% ONLY. IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A CASE OF IGNORANCE OF LAW AS THE ASSESSEE IS WELL AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF IT ACT AND HAS BEEN FILING HIS RETURN OF INCOME SINCE MANY YEARS. SIMIL ARLY, AS REGARDS THE WRONG CLAIM OF PURCHASE COST WHILE WORKING OUT THE STCG, THE ASSESSEE HAD INTENTIONALLY MADE THE EXCESSIVE CLAIM OF PURCH ASE COST, WHEN IT WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS MA KING A WRONG CLAIM, WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISION S OF IT ACT. THEREFORE, IN THIS CASE, EXPLANATION 1 BELOW 271(1) (C) IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE. ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF INCOME. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE ONUS WAS ON ASSESSEE TO PROVE EACH ENTRY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS THE PRIMARY FACTS WERE IN THE K NOWLEDGE OF ASSESSEE. 4. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), BUT TO NO AVAIL AND LEAR NED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. ITA NO. 357/AHD /2016 RAMESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI DOBARIA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 8 - 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER. LEARNED AR FILED A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P.) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-I [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC), HEAD NOTE OF WHICH READ AS UNDER:- IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF I NCOME BONA FIDE MISTAKE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 ASSESSEE FIRM F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH TAX AUDIT REPORT IN ITS TAX AUD IT REPORT IT WAS INDICATED THAT PROVISION TOWARDS PAYMENT OF GRATUIT Y WAS NOT ALLOWABLE BUT IT FAILED TO ADD PROVISION FOR GRATUITY TO ITS TOTAL INCOME WHETHER IT WAS A BONA FIDE AND INADVERTENT ERROR HELD, YES WHETHER ASSESSEE WAS NOT GUILTY OF EITHER FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME HELD, YES WHETHER IMPOSIT ION OF PENALTY WAS UNJUSTIFIED HELD, YES. THE CASE WAS DECIDED IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAI D JUDGMENT, WE DELETE THE PENALTY. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29 / 05 /201 7 SD/- SD/- ( ) 4 5 ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 29/05/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO. 357/AHD /2016 RAMESHBHAI RAVJIBHAI DOBARIA VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 9 - !'# $#! # COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !$' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 67- + 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. + 8- 4!5 / THE CIT(A)-VI, AHMEDABAD. 5. 9:;-67 !.!672 ! / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<=, # GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, (9-- //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COPY 1. DATE OF DICTATION 22/05/2017 (DICTATION-PAD 2 P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 23/05/2017 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 26/05/2017.. 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 29/0 5/2017 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