Mrs. Neelam Sanjay Arya, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 3588/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9316 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 17-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S CHAUDHARY
• Keywords: Salary income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM. ITA NO.3588/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR: 2011-12 MRS. NEELAM SANJAY ARYA, 200 FT. RING ROAD, NR. SUN CITY BOPAL, AHMEDABAD. VS. ITO, WD-8(3), AHMEDABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN ABZPA 1564B APPELLANT BY SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI P. S. CHAUDHARY, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 17/01/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31/01/2017 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR ASST. YEAR 2011-12 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IX, AHMEDABAD, DAT ED 05/10/2015 VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-9/396/14-15 ARISING OUT OF OR DER U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FRAMED ON 28.02 .2014 BY ITO, WD- 8(3), AHMEDABAD. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROU NDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.13 ,02,000 BY DETERMINING ANNUAL VALUE U/S. 23(L)(A) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 3588/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2011-12 2 2. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING TH AT SINCE THE HOUSE PROPERTY WAS VACANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ANNUAL VALUE IS TO BE COMPUTED AT NIL U/S. 23(L)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORDER S WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT AND THAT THEY FURTHER ERRED I N GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BE FORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS IN C LEAR BREACH OF LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE DESERVE S TO BE QUASHED. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF LD. AO IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S 234A/B/C/D OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD. CTT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN INITIATING PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECO RDS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM SALARY , LOSS FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS LOSS. RETURN OF INCOME DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,72,680/- WAS FILED ELECTRONICALLY ON 29.09. 2011. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE U/S 143 (2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 31.07.2012 FOLLOWED BY NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT AND DULY SERVED. NECESSARY DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR AND THE INFORMATION ALONG WITH AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WERE PROVID ED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LOSS UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE P ROPERTY INCOME AT RS.11,24,920/- AND FURTHER OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY RENT IN RESPECT OF SHOP NOS.27 TO 42 OF AMRAPAL I-II, AHMEDABAD BUT DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED U/S 24 OF THE ACT FOR INT EREST PAID ON THESE PROPERTIES. IN REPLY TO THE NOTICE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTIES/SHOPS DID NOT FETCH ANY RENTAL INCOME DURING ITA NO. 3588/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2011-12 3 F.Y. 2010-11 BUT THEY WERE GIVEN ON RENT IN F.Y. 20 09-10 TO ICICI PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE LTD. BUT THE PROPERTIES WERE V ACATED AS THE TENANT CLOSED THEIR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES DUE TO ECON OMIC RECESSION. ASSESSEE FURTHER REFERRED TO CBDT CIRCULAR NO.14 OF 2001 WHICH WAS BROUGHT IN TO RATIONALIZE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SO AS TO PROVIDE SIMPLIFIED DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL VALUE AFTER ALLO WING DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE ALV ITSELF ON ACCOUNT OF VACANCY OF T HE PROPERTY AND UNREALIZED RENT. THEREFORE, IF THE PROPERTY IS SELF -OCCUPIED OR LYING VACANT PARTIALLY OR WHOLLY EITHER IN PART OF THE YE AR OR WHOLE OF THE YEAR, HAS ANNUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE FOR TH AT PART IS NIL, IT WOULD NOT HAVE TO SUFFER ANY TAX DUE TO COMPUTATION U/S 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT. FURTHER IN PARA 29(2) CBDT THE CIRCULAR ST ATES WHERE THE PROPERTY OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY IS LET AND WAS VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND OWING TO SUCH VACANCY THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE IS LESS THAN THE ALV THE SUM SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE SHALL BE THE ACTUAL VALUE. HOWEVER, REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONVINCE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT SHALL APPLY ONLY IF THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN LET OUT FOR SOME PART DURING THE YEAR OR HAS BEEN LYING VACANT DURING PART OF THE YEAR BUT IN TH E INSTANT CASE THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY HAS NOT AT ALL BEEN LET OUT DURIN G THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND, THEREFORE, SECTION 23(1)(A) OF T HE ACT IS APPLICABLE AND THE ALV HAS TO BE COMPUTED AS THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YE AR. ACCORDINGLY ALV OF 16 SHOPS WAS CALCULATED BY APPLYING MONTHLY RENT OF RS.1,50,000/- CALCULATED ANNUAL LETTABLE VALUE (AL V) AT RS.18,60,000/- AND AFTER PROVIDING STANDARD DEDUCTI ON @ 30% AT ITA NO. 3588/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2011-12 4 RS.5,58,000/- THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.13,02,000/ - WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM THIS A SUM O F RS.6,761/- WAS OFFERED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHICH WAS SHOWN I N THE COMPUTATION FOR WHICH ASSESSEE AGREED TO PAY TAX. ACCORDINGLY, INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.14,01,772/- AND BUSINESS LOSS ALLOWE D TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AT RS.9,13,177/-. AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ADD ITION OF RS.13,02,000/- ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED AS THE IMPUGNED AMO UNT WAS SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS :- 2.2 ! HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF T HE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE A.O. IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER . I HAVE ALSO PERUSED VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS B Y THE A.O. INCLUDING THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.14 OF 2001. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHR A PRADESH IN THE CASE OF VIVEK JAIN VS ACIT (2011) 14 TAXMAN 146 (A.P) HAS F URTHER ELABORATED UPON SECTION 23(1). IT STATES AS FOLLOWS :- 'SECTION 23 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERLY - ANNUAL VALUE - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 - WHETHER UNDER SEC TION 23(1)(C), PERIOD FOR WHICH A LET OUT PROPERTY MAY REMAIN VACANT CANNOT E XCEED PERIOD FOR WHICH PROPERTY HAS BEEN LET OUT - HELD, YES ~ WHETHER WHERE PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN LET OUT AT ALL DURING PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY VACANCY ALLOWANCE BEING PROVIDED THERETO UNDER SECT ION 23(1 )(C) - HELD, YES - WHETHER WORDS IN SECTION 23(1 )(C) 'WHERE THE PROPE RTY IS LET' CANNOT BE READ AS 'WHERE THE PROPERTY IS INTENDED TO BE LET' - HELD, YES [IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE] WORDS AND PHRASES : 'WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LET' AS OCCURRING IN SECTION 23(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1361. FACTS FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE FILED HI S RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING CERTAIN INCOME. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO INCLUDE ANNUAL VALUE IN RESPECT OF A FIAT IN THE CO MPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT AS PER SECTION 23(1 )(C), THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE FLAT WAS NIL AND, HEN CE, HE WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HELD THAT SECTION 23(1)(C) WOUL D APPLY ONLY WHEN THE PROPERTY V/AS LET OUT AND SINCE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS NOT LET OUT DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR, THE QUESTION OF ALLOWING ANY DEDUCTION ON ACC OUNT OF VACANCY V/OULD NOT ITA NO. 3588/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2011-12 5 ARISE. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON SECOND APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED T HAT IN CASES WHERE THE PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN LET OUT AT ALL DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ANY VACANCY ALLOWANCE AS PROVIDE D IN SECTION 23(1)(C) AND, HENCE, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DETE RMINING THE ANNUAL LET OUT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS UPHELD. ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT: HELD WHILE INTERPRETING A STATUTE, THE COURT MAY NOT ONL Y TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT HAD BEEN ENACTED, BUT ALSO THE MISCHIEF IT SEEKS TO SUPPRESS. IT IS EVIDENT THAT CLAUSE (C ) OF SECTION 23(1) HAS BEEN INSERTED AS A PROTECTION TO THE ASSESSEE IN CASES WHERE, ON ACCOU NT OF VACANCY, THE RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE ON A PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN LET OUT IS LESS THAN THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A). PRIOR TO ITS AMENDMENT, EVEN IN SUCH CASES IT WAS THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) WHICH WAS TO BE TAKEN AS THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. [PARA 10] IN ORDER TO ATTRACT SECTION 23(1 )(C ), THE FOLLOWI NG REQUIREMENTS MUST BE FULFILLED .(I) THE PROPERTY, OR ANY PART THEREOF, MUST BE LET ; AND (II) IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR; (HI) OWING TO SUCH VACANCY THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY T HE OWNER IN RESPECT THEREOF SHOULD BE LESS THAN THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE ( A ). IT IS ONLY IF THESE THREE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED, CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 23( 1) WOULD APPLY IN WHICH EVENT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE, IN TERMS OF CLAU SE (C) OF SECTION 23(1), SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. C LAUSE (C) DOES NOT APPLY TO SITUATIONS WHERE THE PROPERTY HAS EITHER NOT BEEN L ET OUT AT ALL DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR OR, EVEN IF LET OUT, WAS NOT VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. UNDER THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 23( 1), FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (B) OR (C ), THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY RECEIVED OR RECEIV ABLE BY THE OWNER SHALL NOT INCLUDE THE .AMOUNT OF RENT WHICH THE OWNER CANNOT REALIZE. SELF-OCCUPATION BY THE OWNER OF A HOUSE WOULD REQUIRE THE ANNUAL VALUE OF SUCH HOUSE, OR PART OF THE HOUSE, TO BE TAKEN AS NIL UNDER SECTION 23{2)(A) AN D, WHERE THE HOUSE CANNOT ACTUALLY BE OCCUPIED BY THE OWNER ON ACCOUNT OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, AS NIL UNDER SECTION 23(2)(B), PROVIDED THAT IN TERMS OF SECTION 23(3)(A), THE HOUSE OR PART OF THE HOUSE HAD NOT AC TUALLY BEEN LET DURING THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. AS A LEGAL FICTION IS CREATED, THE WORD 'ACTUALLY', AS USED IN SECTION 23(3)(C) DOES NOT FI ND MENTION IN SECTION 23(1). [PARA 11] THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED ON SECTION 23(1)(C ), BY TH E ASSESSEE THAT IF THERE IS AN INTENTION TO LET OUT THE PROPERTY DURING THE RELEVA NT YEAR, COUPLED WITH EFFORTS BEING MADE FOR LETTING IT OUT, IT MUST BE HELD MAT THE PROPERTY IS LET, WOULD NECESSITATE READING WORDS INTO SECTION 23(1 )(C ) W HICH DO NOT EXIST. THE WORDS 'VSHERO THE PROPERTY IS LET' CANNOT BE READ AS 'WHE RE THE PROPERTY IS INTENDED TO BE LET'. THE PROVISIONS OF A TAX STATUTE MUST BE ST RICTLY CONSTRUED. THE WORDS OF A ITA NO. 3588/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2011-12 6 STATUTE MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN THEIR NATURAL, ORDINA RY OR POPULAR SENSE AND CONSTRUED ACCORDING TO THEIR GRAMMATICAL MEANING. [ PARA 12] THE CONTENTION, THAT AS CLAUSE (C ) PROVIDES FOR AN EVENTUALITY WHERE A PROPERTY CAN BE VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OF THE RELEVANT PREV IOUS YEAR, BOTH SITUATIONS, I. E., 'PROPERTY IS LET' AND 'PROPERTY IS VACANT FOR THE V JHOLE OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR' CANNOT CO-EXIST, DOES NOT MERIT ACCEPTANCE. C LAUSE (C) ENCOMPASSES CASES WHERE A PROPERTY IS LET OUT FOR MORE THAN A YEAR IN WHICH EVENT ALONE WOULD THE QUESTION OF IT BEING VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR ARISE. A PROPERTY LET OUT FOR TWO OR MORE YEARS CAN ALSO BE VACANT FOR THE WHOLE OF A PREVIOUS YEAR BRINGING IT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF CLAUS E (C) OF SECTION 23(1). [PARA 14] THE CONTENTION, THAT IF THE OWNER HAD LET OUT THE P ROPERTY EVEN FOR A DAY, IT WOULD ACQUIRE THE STATUS OF 'LET OUT PROPERTY' FOR THE PU RPOSE OF CLAUSE (C ) FOR THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE PROPERTY EVEN WITHOUT ANY INTENTION TO LET IT OUT IN THE RELEVANT YEAR, IS ALSO NOT TENABLE. THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE AN NUAL LET OUT VALUE OF A HOUSE PROPERTY SHOULD BE TAKEN AS NIL IS ARE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 23(2). UNDER SECTION 23(1 )(C), THE PERIOD FOR WHICH A LET OUT PROPERTY MAY REMAIN VACANT CANNOT EXCEED THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN L ET OUT. IF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN LET OUT FOR A PART OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, IT CA N BE VACANT ONLY FOR TH& PART OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS LET OU T SND NOT BEYOND. FOR THAT PART OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR DURING VJHICH THE PROPERTY WAS NOT LET OUT, BUT WAS VACANT, CLAUSE (C) 'WOULD NOT APPLY AND IT IS ONLY CLAUSE ( A) WHICH WOULD BE APPLICABLE, SUBJECT OF COURSE TO SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SE CTION 23. SUCH A CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT LEAD TO ANY HARDSHIP, INCONVENIENCE, INJUS TICE, ABSURDITY OR ANOMALY AND, THEREFORE, THE RULE OF ORDINARY AND NATURAL ME ANING BEING FOLLOWED CANNOT BE DEPARTED FROM. BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 23(1 )(C) CANN OT BE EXTENDED TO A CASE WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS NOT LET OUT AT ALL. [PARA 15] THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION THAT THE WORDS 'PROPERTY IS LET' ARE USED IN CLAUSE (C) TO TAKE OUT THOSE PROPERTIES WHICH ARE H ELD BY THE OWNER FOR SELF- OCCUPATION FROM THE AMBIT OF THE SAID CLAUSE. SECTI ON 23(2)(A) TAKES OUT A SELF- OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OR A PART THEREOF FROM THE AMBIT OF SECTION 23(1). - LIKEWISE, UNDER SECTION 23{2)(B), WHERE A HOUSE CANNOT ACTUALLY BE OCCUPIED BY- THE OWNER ON ACCOUNT OF HIS CARRYING ON EMPLOYMENT, BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AT ANY OTHER PLACE REQUIRING HIM TO RESIDE AT SUCH OTH ER PLACE IN A BUILDING NOT BELONGING TO HIM, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS NIL , THEREBY TAKING IT OUT OF THE AMBIT OF SECT ION 23(1), SECTION 23(3)(A) MAKES IT CLEAR THAT SECTION 23(2) WOULD NOT APPLY IF THE HOUSE OR A PART THEREOF IS ACTUALLY LET DURING THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE PREVIOUS YE AR. THUS, ONLY SUCH OF THE PROPERTIES WHICH ARE OCCUPIED BY THE OWNER FOR HIS RESIDENCE, OR WHICH ARE KEPT VACANT ON ACCOUNT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 23(2), FALL OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF SECTION 23(1), PROVIDED T HEY ARE, AS STIPULATED IN SECTION 23(3)(A ), NOT ACTUALLY LET DURING THE WHOLE OR PAR T OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. CLAUSE (C) WAS NOT INSERTED TO TAKE OUT FROM ITS AMBIT PROPERT IES HELD BY THE OWNER FOR SELF- OCCUPATION INASMUCH AS SECTION 23(2)(A ) PROVIDES F OR SUCH AN EVENTUALITY. IT IS ONLY TO MITIGATE THE HARDSHIP FACED BY AN ASSESSEE, AND AS CLAUSE (B ) DOES NOT ITA NO. 3588/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2011-12 7 DEAL WITH THE CONTINGENCY WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LET AND, BECAUSE OF VACANCY, THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER IS LESS THAN THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A ), WAS CLAUSE (C) INSERTED. IN CASES V/HE RE THE PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN LET OUT AT ALL DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY VACANCY ALLOWANCE BEING PROVIDED THERETO UNDER SECTION 23(1 )(C ). [PARA 16] ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS TO BE UPH ELD. [PARA 17]' RELYING UPON THE ABOVE STATED JUDGMENT WHICH HAS DE LIBERATED UPON SEC. 23(1 )(C) OF THE ACT AND DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL LETTING VALUE F OR A PROPERTY WHICH IS VACANT THROUGHOUT THE PREVIOUS YEAR, I HEREBY CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THA T ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF ALUMINIUM PAN EL SHEET. ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LOSS FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS.11,24,920/ -. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT APART FROM SELF-OCCUPIED PROP ERTY, ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY RENT INCOME FOR SHOP PROPERTY BUT HAD SHOWN DEDUCTION OF INTEREST. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION T HAT THE ANNUAL VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY HAD TO BE CONSIDERED U/S.23(1)(A) OF THE ACT AS ASSESSEE HAS NOT LET ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY AND ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT PRIMARY CONDITION FOR S.23(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS THAT THE PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN LET OUT DURING PART OR WHOLE YEAR AND HAD BEEN LYING VACANT DURING PART OF OR WHOLE YEAR. ASSESSING OFFICER HEL D THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT LET IT OUT AT ALL, S.23(1)(A) OF T HE ACT IS APPLICABLE AND ALV HAS TO BE COMPUTED AS SUM FOR WHICH PROPERTY MI GHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR, (PARA 3.3) ASSES SING OFFICER TOOK RENT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AY 2010-11 TO CALCULATE THE ALV AT RS.13,02,000/- FOR 16 SHOPS U/S.23(L)(A). ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON YATINDER KUMAR V ITO (2011) 133 ITD 237 (PUNE TRIB.) WHICH PERTAINS TO S.17(3) OF THE ACT AND IS IRRELEVANT, (PARA 3.6 I)) AO RELIED UPON ITA NO. 3588/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2011-12 8 VIVEKJAIN V ACIT (2011) 14_TAXMAN 146(AP) DATED 25/01/2011 TO MAKE THE ADDITION. LD.CIT QUOTED VIVEK JAIN V ACIT (2011) 14 TAXMAN 146(AP) AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER . IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECENTLY FOR AY 201 0-11 LET THE PROPERTY TO IC1CI PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE LTD. BUT DUE TO ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN, IT WAS VACATED. THIS SHOWS THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO LET THE PROPERTY AND HENCE IT WOULD FALL U/S.23(L)(C). FOR THIS REAS ON, THE ALV WOULD BE NIL. THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY AC SREERAM V ACIT ITA NO.L089/BANG/2010 DATED 21/03/2012 WHICH DEALT WITH A CASE WHERE THERE WAS INTENTION TO LET OUT PR OPERTY, BUT IT COULD NOT BE LET OUT DUE TO A SLOWDOWN IN THE ECONOMY. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT FOR THESE REASONS, THE DECISION IS SQUARELY APPLICA BLE TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. FOLLOWING A CATENA OF DECISIONS, I T WAS HELD IN AC SREERAM (SUPRA). A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE SECTION CANNOT SURV IVE BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATU RE TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN AN OWNER WHO LETS OUT PROPERTY FOR 1 DAY AN D AN OWNER WHO DOES NOT LET IT OUT AT ALL. THE INTERPRETATION OF T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES WILL LEAD TO UNDESIRABLE RESULTS: EVEN IF THE PROPERTY W AS LET OUT BY A PREVIOUS OWNER, IT COULD BE CLAIMED AS LET OUT AS T HE CLAUSE TALKS ABOUT THE PROPERTY AND NOT THE OWNER EVEN THOUGH TH E CURRENT OWNER HAD NO INTENTION TO LET IT OUT. LEGISLATURE WOULD H AVE USED THE WORDS 'ACTUALLY LET' AS IT DID IN S.23(3) OF THE ACT IF T HAT WAS THE INTENTION IN S.23(L)(C) OF THE ACT. RELYING ON AC SREERAM (SUPRA), IT IS SUBMITTED THAT INTENTION TO LET IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSE S OF S.23(L)(C). THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IS ALSO COVERED BY ACIT V PRABLTA SANGHI [2012] 27 TAXMANN.COM 317 (DELHI) DATED 18/09/2012 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT S.23(L)(C) OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY WHERE THE ASSESS EE HAD EARLIER LET ITA NO. 3588/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2011-12 9 OUT PROPERTY BUT IT WAS LYING VACANT IN THE RELEVAN T YEAR. THE FACTS ARE AGAIN SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. I T IS SUBMITTED THAT AS THESE DECISIONS ARE MORE RECENT IN TIME THAN VIVEK JAIN (25/01/2011). THEY OUGHT TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE ASSE SSEC'S CASE. 5. LD. AR FURTHER REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE C O-ORDINATE BENCH, PUNE IN THE CASE OF VIKAS KESHAV GARUD VS. I TO (2016) 71 TAXMANN.COM 214 (PUNE-TRIB) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECIS ION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IF AN ASSES SEE INTENDED TO LET OUT PROPERTY AND TOOK EFFORTS IN LETTING OUT THE PR OPERTY BUT ULTIMATELY FAILED TO LET THE SAME IN TERMS OF SEC.23 (1)(C) OF THE ACT FROM LETTABLE VALUE HAS TO BE NIL BEING LESS THAN SUM REFERRED TO IN SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 6. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) VEHEMENTLY ARGUED AND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US AND GONE THROUGH THE DECISION REFE RRED BY THE LD. AR. SOLITARY GRIEVANCE IN THIS APPEAL RAISED BY ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.13,02,000/- MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OF FICER AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) MADE TOWARDS CALCULATED N.P . ANNUAL LETTABLE VALUE U/S 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT, OF ALL THE PROPERTIE S WHICH REMAINED VACANT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. FROM GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY ASSESSEE AND LD. AR WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF 16 SHOPS BEARING NO.2 7 TO 42 SITUATED ITA NO. 3588/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2011-12 10 AT AMRAPALI II, COMPLEX, AHMEDABAD WHICH REMAINED VACANT THROUGH OUT THE YEAR AND DEDUCTION OF INTEREST WAS CLAIMED U/S 24 OF THE ACT AT RS.10,90,296/-. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS FETCHING RENTAL INCOME IN THE PRECEDIN G F.Y.2009-10 AS IT WAS LET OUT TO ICICI PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE LTD. B UT THE PROPERTY GOT VACATED AND IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. 2011 -12 NECESSARY EFFORTS WERE MADE TO LET OUT THE IMPUGNED SHOPS BUT WAS UNABLE TO DO SO DUE TO RECESSION IN THE ECONOMY. ON THE BASIS OF THESE REASONS ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT, ALV IS NIL AFTER CLAIMING VACA NCY ALLOWANCE. WHEREAS LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE CONFIRMED VIEW THAT SECTION 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT WILL APPLY ONLY IF THE PROPERTY IS VACANT FOR SOME PART OF THE YEAR MEANING THEREBY THAT FOR A CERTAIN PART OF THE YEAR PROPERTY HAS TO BE LET OUT AND THEN ONLY THE ASSESS EE CAN CLAIM VACANCY ALLOWANCE. AS THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY REMAINE D VACANT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT A LLOW THE VACANCY ALLOWANCE U/S 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.13,02,000/- BY ESTIMATING ANNUAL RENT OF THE IMPUGNED 16 SHOPS AT RS.18,60,000/- AFTER ALLOWING STANDARD DEDUCTION @ 30% AT RS.5,58,000/- CALCULATED ON LETTABLE VALUE U/S 23(1 )(A) OF THE ACT AT RS.13,02,000/-. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT SIMILAR ISS UE HAD COME UP BEFORE VARIOUS JUDICIAL FORUMS AND ONE OF THE LATES T DECISION OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH, PUNE IN THE CASE OF VIKAR KESHAV GA RUD VS. ITO (SUPRA) PRONOUNCED IN MARCH, 16, 2016 WHEREIN SIMIL AR ISSUE CAME UP AND THE FACTS OF THAT CASE WERE THAT ASSESSEE OW NED A PROPERTY WHICH REMAINED VACANT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND ASSE SSEE DECLARED ALV OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.NIL WHILE FILING THE RETU RN OF INCOME. IN THE ITA NO. 3588/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2011-12 11 COURSE OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED GROS S ALV AT RS.1,51,200/- AND THIS ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY LD . CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE FACTS DISCUSSED IN THIS DECISION OF CO-ORD INATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF VIKAS KESHAV GARUD (SUPRA) ARE VERBATIM SIM ILAR TO THOSE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, PUNE IN THE CASE OF VIKASH K ESHAV GARUD (SUPRA) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS :- 17. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS DENIED THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR DETE RMINATION OF AI.V ON THE GROUND THAT CLAUSE (C) DOES NOT APPLY TO A SITUATION \\HCR E THE PROPERLY HAS EITHER NOT BEEN LET OUT AT ALL DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR OR EVE N IT' LET OUT, \\AS NOT VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORDS 'WHERE THE PROPERLY IS LET' CANNOT BE READ AS 'WHERE THE PROPERTY IS INTENDED LO BE LET'. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF VIVEK JAIN (.SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE ARDENTLY CONTESTED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE CIT'(A) AND CLAIMED THAT IN VIEW OF S. 23(1 )(C). T HE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE (ALV) OUGHT LO HAVE BEEN DETERMINED AT NIL HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THE PROPERLY COULD NOT BE LET OUT AND REMAINED VACANT FOR THE WHOLE \E AR. IN SUPPORT OF IBIS PROPOSITION, DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PREMSUDHA EXPORTS (P) LTD. VS. ASSTT. CIT [2008] 110 ITD I58 |20U7| 17 SOT 293 (MUM.) AND SHAKIINIALA DEVI V. DY. DIT [IT APPEAL NO. 1524/BANG/20I0. DATE D 20-12-2011] WERE RELIED UPON BEFORE CIT(A). WE NOTICE FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY LET OUT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 TO M /S. IUBI HOME FINANCE LTD. AT AN ACTUAL RENTAL VALUE OF RS. I2.600/- PER MONTH I.E. RS. I.5I.200/- PER ANNUM. DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT LO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN APP EAL, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT LET OUT THE PROPERTY AND THUS REMAINED VACANT THROU GHOUT THE YEAR. THEREFORE, THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE PR OPERTY WAS ALWAYS AVAILABLE TO BE LET OUT, HOWEVER, COULD NOT BE ACTUALLY LET O UT IN REALITY. THE INTENTION LO LET OUT THE PROPERTY IS THUS LOUD AND CLEAR IN THE CIRC UMSTANCES WHICH DID NOT HOWEVER FRUCTIFY. 8. THE AI.V OF PROPERLY REMAINING VACANT FOR THE WH OLE YEAR HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 23(1 )(C) OF THE ACT. THI S SUB-SECTION DEALS WITH A SITUATION WHERE THE PROPERTY REMAINS VACANT FOR THE WHOLE \EAR, SECTION 23( I )(C) OF THE ACT AS RELEVANT IN THE CONTEXT IS SET OUT FO R READY REFERENCE AS UNDER : ITA NO. 3588/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2011-12 12 '| ANNUAL VALUE HOW DETERMINED. . , 23. ( I ) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 22. THE ANNUA L VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE (C) WHERE THE PROPERLY OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY IS LET AND WAS VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OR AN\ PART OF THE PREVIOUS SEAR AND OWING TO SUCH VACANCY THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER IN RESPECT THER EOF IS LESS THAN THE SUM REFERRED LO IN CLAUSE (A). THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED O R RECEIVABLE : PROVIDED THAT THE TAXES LEVIED BY ANY LOCAL AUTHORI TY IN 'RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE DEDUCTED (IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PREVIOUS YEA R IN WHICH THE LIABILITY TO PAY SUCH TAXES WAS INCURRED BY THE OWNER ACCORDING LO T HE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY HIM) IN DETERMINING THE ANNUA L VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH TAXES ARC ACTUALLY PAID BY HIM. '[UNDERLINE IS OURS] 9. SECTION 23(1)(C) BY ITS LITERAL WORDING INCLUDE A SITUATION WHERE A PROPERTY WHICH WAS VACANT DURING THE WHOLE YEAR BY SAYING TH AT 'WHEN A PROPERLY /.V LEI AND WAS VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OR PART OF THE PREV IOUS YEAR ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER IS LESS THAN .SUM REFERR ED TO IN CLAUSE (A), THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE '. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT A SITUATION CANNOT COEXIST WHEREIN THE PROPERTY IS LET DURING THE PREVIOUS YEA R AND IS ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY VACANT FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. THE WORD 'LET 1 AND 'VACANT' ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. TO APPRECIATE IL FURTHER, THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF IBIS PROVISION HAS TO BE VIEWED WITH REGARD LO THE INTENTION TOGETHER WITH EFFORTS PUT BY ASSESSEE IN LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY, ETC. AND THEN GROSS ANNUAL VALUE IS REQUI RED LO BE DETERMINED. IF THE ASSESSEE INTENDED TO LET THE PROPERLY AND TOOK APPR OPRIATE EFFORTS IN LETTING THE PROPERTY BUT ULTIMATELY FAILED LO LET THE SAME, THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED FROM IT WILL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS 'ZERO' BEING LESS THAN THE SUM REFERRED IN SECTION 23(1 ){A) OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHI NG ON RECORD IN REBUTTAL TO SAY THAT THE PROPERLY HAS NOT REMAINED VACANT FOR THE W HOLE YEAR OR WAS SELF- OCCUPIED IN SOME MANNER. AS NOTED ABOVE, THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ON THE PREVIOUS OCCASION IN THE PRECEDING YEAR RENTED THE PROPERLY REMAINS UNTRAVERSED. WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE INTERPRETATIO N SUGGESTED BY THE REVENUE THAT PROPERTY SHOULD BE ACTUALLY LET OUT IN RELEVAN T TO PREVIOUS YEAR. THIS INTERPRETATION DOES NOT APPEAR CONSISTENT WITH THE PHRASEOLOGY MANDATED IN SECTION 23(L)(C) WHICH INCLUDES A SITUATION WHERE T HE PROPERTY CAN REMAIN VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. HEN CE. BOTH SITUATIONS NAMELY 'PROPERLY IS LET' AND REMAINED VACANT FOR THE WHOLE YEAR CANNOT COEXIST DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR. WE ALSO NOTE FROM A READING OF ANOT HER PROVISION I.E. SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 23 OF THE ACT. WHERE THE LEGISLATURES IN THEIR WISDOM HAVE US ED THE WORD 'HOUSE IS ACTUALLY LET'. THIS ALSO SHOWS THAT THE EXPRESSION 'PROPERLY IS 'LET' CANNOT MEAN ACTUAL LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE HAD IT BEEN SO, THERE WAS NO NEED TO USE THE WORD 'ACTUALLY' IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 23 OF THE ACT. APPLYING THE PURPOSIVE ITA NO. 3588/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2011-12 13 INTERPRETATION, THE EXPRESSION 'PROPERLY IS LET' HA S TO BE READ IN CONTRAST TO 'PROPERTY IS SELL' OCCUPIED' LO ARRIVE AT ITS TRUE PURPORT. WE SIMULTANEOUSLY NOTE ON FACTS THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACTUALLY LEI OUT I N THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AS NOTED ABOVE. IT CANNOT BE RECKONED TO BE IN THE CON TROL OF THE ASSESSEE LO LET OUT THE PROPERLY THROUGHOUT NECESSARILY. THE DECISION O F HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE EASE OF VIVEK JAIN (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE CANNOT BE READ IN A MANNER THAT IF THE PROPERLY REMAINS VA CANT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. SECTION 23(1)(C) DO NOT APPLY AT ALL MORE SO WHEN T HE PROPERTY WAS LET OUT IN PROCEEDING OR SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THEREFORE, IN THE TO TALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AI.V OF THE PROPERTY AT DANDE TOWERS WHICH REMAINED VACANT FOR THE WHOLE YEAR HAS TO BE ASSIGNED ALV VALUE IN TERMS OF SECTION 23(1 )(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) STANDS MODIFIED LO THIS EXTENT. GROUND NO. 1 IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-OR DINATE BENCH, PUNE IN THE CASE OF VIKAS KESHAV GARUD (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY ASSIGNED NIL ANNUAL LET TABLE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED 16 SHOPS WHICH WERE READY TO BE LET O UT DURING THE YEAR BUT REMAINED VACANT THROUGHOUT THE YEARAND THE SAME WAS DULY COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), DELE TE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.13,02,000/-, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2017 SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 31/01/2017 MAHATA/- ITA NO. 3588/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2011-12 14 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 30/01/2017 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 31/01/2017 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 1/2/17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: