The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Morbi Circle, Morbi V. M/s Small Johnson Floor Tiles P. Ltd., Morbi

ITA 370/RJT/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6719 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D M RINDANI AR
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Wholly owned subsidiary
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [ CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD ] BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. ./ I.T.A. NO.369/RJT/2016 2. ./ I.T.A. NO.370/RJT/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012-13 & 2013-14 RESPECTIVELY ) THE ACIT MORBI CIRCLE MORBI / VS. M/S. SMALL JOHNSON FLOOR TILES P.LTD., 8-A, NATIONAL HIGHWAY LAKHDHIPUR ROAD, MORBI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAQCS 5393 F ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAVIN VERMA, SR.DR ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.M. RINDANI, AR ' #$% ! & / DATE OF HEARING 01/02/2017 '( ! & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08/02/2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE DIRECTED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A PPEALS)-3, RAJKOT [CIT(A) IN SHORT] IDENTICALLY DATED 04/07/2016 P ERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2012-13 & 2013-14. ITA NOS.369 & 370/RJT/2 016 ACIT VS. M/S.SMALL JOHNSON FLOOR TILES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 2 - 2. SINCE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE AYS ARE IDENTICAL AND FACTS BEING SIMILAR BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF BY COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.369/RJT/2016 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE R ELEVANT TO AY 2012- 13 READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,41,127/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE I.T. ACT AS PER CIRCULAR NO.5 OF 2014, DATED 11.07.2014 WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT LEGISLATIVE INTENT (FOR INTRODUCTION O F SECTION 14A) IS TO ALLOW ONLY THAT EXPENDITURE WHICH IS RELATABL E TO EARNING OF INCOME AND IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS THAT THE EXPENSE S WHICH ARE RELATABLE TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME HAVE TO BE CO NSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER ANY SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR OR NOT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MA DE U/S.14A READ WITH RULE 8D WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING OR APPRE CIATING THE RELEVANT DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT ON THE IDENTIC AL ISSUE, I.E. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOD REJ & BOYCE MFG. CO.LTD., 328 ITR 81 AND HIGH COURT DECIS IONS FOLLOWING THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION ON RULE 8D W.E.F. A.Y. 2008-09. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/ S.14A READ WITH RULE 8D WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS IN TH E CASES OF SUZLON ENERGY LTD. 354 ITR 630 (GUJARAT) AND CORRTE CH ITA NOS.369 & 370/RJT/2 016 ACIT VS. M/S.SMALL JOHNSON FLOOR TILES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 3 - ENERGY PVT.LTD. 363 ITR 474 (GUJARAT) SIMPLY BECAUS E THESE CASES ARE NOT APPLICABLE HERE AS THEY PERTAIN TO AS SESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO A.Y. 2008-09 [AY 2005-06 AND AY 2006 -07 RESPECTIVELY] WHEN RULE 8D 2AS NOT APPLICABLE AT AL L. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2012-13 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER (AO) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.647.14 LAKHS IN ITS 100% SUBSIDIARY COMPANY BY ACQUIRING SHARES THEREIN. THE SE SHARES ARE CAPABLE OF YIELDING DIVIDEND INCOME. THE DIVIDEND INCOME E ARNED DURING THE YEAR HOWEVER STANDS AT NIL. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO THAT ITS INVESTMENT IN 100% SUBSIDIARY COMPANY O R ANY OTHER COMPANY WAS NOT MADE FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME PER SE . THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING AT THE TIME OF SALE OF SHARES IS NOT TAX-FREE BECAUSE THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPA NY AND NOT A LISTED COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY TAX EXE MPTED DIVIDEND INCOME DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN 100% SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IS A STRATEGIC INVESTMENT SOLELY FOR CARRYING ON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AS A SEPARATE VEHICLE. THE AO HOWEVER, RELIED UPON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.5 OF 2014 DATED 11/07/2014 ON THE ISSUE AND OBSERVED THAT THE PRESENCE OF ACTUAL RECEIPT OF DIV IDEND INCOME IS NOT NECESSARY. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORT BY THE USE OF TE RM INCLUDIBLE IN THE HEADING TO SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AS WELL AS RULE 8 D OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. THE AO ALSO REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSE E THAT INVESTMENT IN ITA NOS.369 & 370/RJT/2 016 ACIT VS. M/S.SMALL JOHNSON FLOOR TILES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 4 - PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY IS NOT COVERED BY SECTION 1 4A OF THE ACT OWING TO POSSIBILITIES OF TAXABLE CAPITAL GAINS. T HE AO ACCORDINGLY, APPLIED THE FORMULA LAID DOWN IN RULE-8D AND WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.13,41,127/- IN AGGREGATE UNDER S ECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 4. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, RE-EXAMINE D THE ISSUE AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT E XTRACTS OF THE OPERATIVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) READS AS UNDER:- 3.0 DECISION: 3.1 THE 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF RS.13,41,127/-. IT WAS NOTED BY AO THAT THERE WAS INVESTMENT OF RS.6.47 CRORES IN A 100% SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WHIC H WAS CAPABLE OF YIELDING DIVIDEND INCOME HAVE BEEN MADE DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS INFORMED BY THE APPELLANT THAT DU RING THE INSTANT YEAR, NO TAX EXEMPT INCOME HAD BEEN CLAIMED . IT WAS INFORMED BY APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RESERV E AND SURPLUS OF RS.12 CRORES AND AS SUCH THE INTEREST BE ARING LOANS WERE TAKEN FOR OTHER SPECIFIC PERSON AND WERE NOT U TILIZED FOR THIS SPECIFIC INVESTMENT. AO DID NOT AGREE WITH AB OVE CONTENTIONS STATING INTERALIA THAT NON GENERATION O F TAX EXEMPT INCOME IN A PARTICULAR AY IS NOT A BAR FOR INVOKING SECTION 14A AS EVIDENT IN THE CIRCULAR NO.5 OF 2015 DTD. 11 /7/2014 BY CBDT WHICH HIGHLIGHTS THE WORD INCLUDIBLE AND IN COME UNDER THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO STATED BY AO THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WAS FRESH INVESTMENT MADE DU RING THE CURRENT YEAR WHICH HAS ALSO SEEN RAISING OF FRESH I NTEREST BEARING LOAN AND THUS INDIRECTLY THE INTEREST BEARI NG LOAN ARE THE SOURCE OF THE THESE INVESTMENTS. ACCORDINGLY B E COMPUTED DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A UNDER RULE 8D AT RS.13,41,127/ -. ITA NOS.369 & 370/RJT/2 016 ACIT VS. M/S.SMALL JOHNSON FLOOR TILES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 5 - DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS SAME ARGUMENT WERE REITERATED I. 1) THERE IS DIRECT NEXUS OF LOAN TAKE N WITH OTHER SPECIFIC BUSINESS PURPOSE AND AS SUCH NO INTEREST BEARING LOAN WAS UTILIZED FOR SHARE INVESTMENT AS THERE WAS SUFFICIENT RESERVE & SURPLUS [RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT 354 ITR 0630 CIT VS. SUZ LON ENERGY LTD. AND ON 376 ITR 0353 (GUJ.)THERE IS NO T AX EXEMPT INCOME HENCE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A DOES NOT COME INTO PICTURE AS RULED BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN C ASE OF CIT VS. CORRTECH ENERGY PVT.LTD. 363 ITGR 047 (GUJA RAT). FURTHER ARGUMENT WAS ALSO MADE THAT INVESTMENT IN S UBSIDIARY COMPANY IS OF THE NATURE OF STRATEGIC INVESTMENT OU T OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 14A SHOULD NOT BE INVOKED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AND OTHER EXPENSES INCURRED ON SUCH INVESTMENT. I AGREE WITH LD.AR IN RESPECT OF ALL 3 ARGUMENTS. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS VERY VERY CLEARLY RULED IN (2015) 372 ITR 0079 (GUJ) THA T: (QUOTE) INCOME AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITUR E OF SPECIFIED AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 14ADISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(APPEALS)-TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT MA KE ANY CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION AND IN SUCH SITUATION. SECTION 14A COULD HAVE NO APPLICATION-HELD, S. 14A(1) PROVIDES THAT FOR THE P URPOSE OF COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME UNDER CHAPTER IV OF THE ACT, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME- ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION AND I N SUCH A SITUATION. S.14A COULD HAVE NO APPLICATION AND REV ENUES APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. (UNQUOTE) 3.2. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, DISALLOWANC E MADE U/S.14A IS HEREBY DELETED. THUS GROUND 1 & 2 ARE A LLOWED. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. AGGRIEVED THERETO, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NOS.369 & 370/RJT/2 016 ACIT VS. M/S.SMALL JOHNSON FLOOR TILES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 6 - 6. IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A), THE LD.DR FOR THE REVENUE MR.PRAVI N VERMA RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND IN FURTHERANCE SUBMITT ED THAT CBDT CIRCULAR NO.5 OF 2014 DATED 11/07/2014 SQUARELY COV ERS THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THUS, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE CONCLU SION OF THE CIT(A) IS WHOLLY INCORRECT. 7. THE LD.AR MR.D.M. RINDANI, ON THE OTHER HAND, RE LIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ON THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CORRTECH ENERGY PVT.LTD. REPORTED IN 363 ITR 474(GUJ.). 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR DETERMINATION IS WHETHER SECTION 14A IS APPLICABLE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVED ANY EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR FROM ASSETS CAPABLE OF YIELDING EXEMPT INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, WE NOTE THAT THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO.5 OF 2014 DATED 11/02/2014 CA ME OUT WITH THE CLARIFICATION THAT THE LEGISLATIVE INTEND IS TO ALL OW ONLY THAT EXPENDITURE WHICH IS RELATABLE TO EARNING OF TAXABLE INCOME IT HAD LAID EMPHASIS ON USES OF TERM INCLUDIBLE USED IN THE HEADING IN SE CTION 14A AND RULE8D AND STATED THAT IT INDICATES THAT EXEMPT INCOME NEE D NOT NECESSARILY BE ITA NOS.369 & 370/RJT/2 016 ACIT VS. M/S.SMALL JOHNSON FLOOR TILES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 7 - INCLUDED IN PARTICULAR YEARS INCOME FOR DISALLOWAN CE TO BE TRIGGERED. THE CBDT IS THUS OF THE VIEW THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDE R 14A IS NOT DEPENDENT ON ACTUAL PRESENCE OF TAX FREE INCOME. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CORRETECH ENERGY PVT.LTD.(SUPRA) AND HOST OF OTHER JUDICIAL FORUMS. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME AND NO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION HAS BEEN MADE, SECTION 14A AND RULE 8D HAVE NO APPLICATION A ND CONSEQUENTLY NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE. ALTHOUGH THE JUDGEMEN T OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CORRETECH ENERGY PVT.LTD.(SUPRA) AND MANY OF THE OTHER HIGH COURTS HAVE BEEN RENDERED PR IOR TO INTRODUCTION OF RULE 8D, WE OBSERVE THAT RULE 8D IS ONLY A MACHI NERY/MECHANISM TO COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE. IT IS TRITE THAT THE RUL ES ARE SUB SERVIENT TO THE MAIN ENACTMENT. RULES CAN NEVER OVERRIDE THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IF THE FACTS OF THE CASE WARRANTS NO DISALLOWA NCE, THE COMPUTATIONAL PROVISION DOES NOT COME INTO PICTURE AT ALL. FURT HER, THE CIRCULARS OF THE CBDT WHICH ARE PREJUDICIAL DO NOT EXERT BINDING FOR CE ON THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WHERE NO EXEMPT INCOME IS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A WOULD NOT OPERATE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE B Y THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE HAVING REGARD TO ABSENCE OF ANY EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN Q UESTION. THEREFORE, WE ITA NOS.369 & 370/RJT/2 016 ACIT VS. M/S.SMALL JOHNSON FLOOR TILES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 8 - CONCUR WITH THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. NO INTERFERENCE THEREWITH IS CALLED FO R. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 369/RJT/2016 FOR AY 2012-13 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.370/RJT/2016 10. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELEVANT TO AY 2013- 14 READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 34,87,476/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE I.T. ACT AS PER CIRCULAR NO.5 OF 2014, DATED 11.07.2014 WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT LEGISLATIVE INTENT (FOR INTRODUCTION O F SECTION 14A) IS TO ALLOW ONLY THAT EXPENDITURE WHICH IS RELATABL E TO EARNING OF INCOME AND IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS THAT THE EXPENSE S WHICH ARE RELATABLE TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME HAVE TO BE CO NSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER ANY SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR OR NOT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MA DE U/S.14A READ WITH RULE 8D WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING OR APPRE CIATING THE RELEVANT DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT ON THE IDENTIC AL ISSUE, I.E. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOD REJ & BOYCE MFG. CO.LTD., 328 ITR 81 AND HIGH COURT DECIS IONS FOLLOWING THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION ON RULE 8D W.E.F. A.Y. 2008-09. ITA NOS.369 & 370/RJT/2 016 ACIT VS. M/S.SMALL JOHNSON FLOOR TILES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 9 - 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/ S.14A READ WITH RULE 8D WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS IN TH E CASES OF SUZLON ENERGY LTD. 354 ITR 630 (GUJARAT) AND CORRTE CH ENERGY PVT.LTD. 363 ITR 474 (GUJARAT) SIMPLY BECAUS E THESE CASES ARE NOT APPLICABLE HERE AS THEY PERTAIN TO AS SESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO A.Y. 2008-09 [AY 2005-06 AND AY 2006 -07 RESPECTIVELY] WHEN RULE 8D 2AS NOT APPLICABLE AT AL L. 11. THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO REVENUES ITA NO.369/RJT/2016 FOR AY 2012-13(SUPRA ). 12. FOR THE PARITY OF REASONING, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.370/RJT/2016 FOR AY 2013-14 STANDS DISMISSED . 13. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 08/02/2 017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( MAHAVIR PRASAD) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD ; DATED 08/02/2017 ..#, $.,#../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NOS.369 & 370/RJT/2 016 ACIT VS. M/S.SMALL JOHNSON FLOOR TILES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14 - 10 - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. - & ' .& / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' .& ( ) / THE CIT(A)-3, RAJKOT 5. 2$34 ,&,# , , /DR,ITAT, RAJKOT 6. 4?@ A% / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 2& ,& //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ! '# $, / ITAT, RAJKOT 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 1.2.17(DICTATION-PAD 13+ PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 2.2.17 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 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. 8.2.17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8.2.17 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