Shri Subhrakanta Swain, Cuttack V. Inocme Tax Officer, Cuttack

ITA 436/CTK/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 43622114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K NEB
• Assessee Lawyers: B PANDAB R PANDAN K PAL ARS
• Section: 68; 43B; 80C; 37(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , H ONBLE SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A.NO. 436/CTK/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 SHRI SUBHAKAN TA SWAIN, PROP. M/S.RUCHIKA SANITARY AND HARDWARE STORE, C.D.A.ROAD, BIDANASI, CUTTACK. PAN: ANKPS 6303 B - - - VERSUS - INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4),CUTTACK. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI B.PANDA/B.R.PANDA/N.K.PAL, ARS / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SHRI N.K.NEB, DR / DATE OF HEARING: 19.11.2012 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.11.2012 / ORDER . . , , SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE IT ON THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS RAISED REGARDING ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.144 OF THE I.T.ACT,1961. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER : A) FOR THAT THE ORDERS OF THE FORUM BELOW ARE MOST CRYPTIC UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. B) FOR THAT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT EXPLAINING THE FACTS AND FURNISHED FULL AND COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE CUSTOMERS BEFORE THE A.O. REGARDING RECEIPT OF ADVANCE BY THE APPELLANT FOR PURCHASE AND SUPPLY THE SPECIFIC MATERIALS DUE TO SCARCITY WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND ALLOWED AND IN CASE OF DOUBT OR SUSPICION GRANT OF CONFRONTATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE APPELLANT. BUT THE A.O. HAVING FA ILED TO ALLOW IN FURNISHING THE STATEMENT BY REMAND REPORT IS ILLEGAL ITA NO.436/CTK/ 2012 2 HENCE THE DEDUCTION IS TO BE ALLOWED HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AT 6,42,812 FROM THE GENUINE CUSTOMERS C) FOR THAT RECEIVING OF ADVANCE FOR SUPPLY OF SPECIFIC MATERIAL IS THE PRACTICE IN THE TRADING BUSINESS IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SO ARISE REGARDING THE QUICK DELIVERY OF MATERIAL AND THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BUT NON - CONSIDERATION AND SKIPPING OVER THE MATTER WITHOUT PROPER CONSIDERATION AT PARA - 7 OF THE ORDER PASSED IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. D) FOR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF 13,314 ON ACCOUNT OF VAT PAID SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND ALLOWED SINCE THE SAME HAS BEEN DEBITED A ND PAID IN TIME BUT DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 43(B) IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. E) FOR THAT THE CLAIM OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE AMOUNTING TO 2 1,679 WHICH WERE RELATED AND CONNECTED AS WELL AS SPENT THE AMOUNT IN THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON AND SUCH AMOUNTS IN CURRED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED WITHOUT PROPER CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT WITH DETAILS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. FURTHER, THE AMOUNT WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AN EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND NOT CAPITAL IN NATURE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED. F) FOR THAT UNDER SECTION 80C CLAIMED AT 1,00,000 SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) VIDE DATED 10.10.2001 ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THEREFORE INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN SHOULD BE ACCEPTED IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS AS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INDULGED IN THE TRADING OF SANITARY FITTINGS AND HARDWARE AND RETURN WAS FILED DISCL OSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF 1, 42,100 AND ON THE BASIS OF PIECEMEAL ADDITIONS TO THE INCOME MADE D ETERMINED AT 38,37,620 RESULTED IN PAYMENT OF TAX AT NET AT 16,53,606. THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN MOST CRYPTIC AND CONFUSED MANNER ADDING A SUM OF 35,60,524 BEING SUNDRY CREDITORS AND NOT CASH CREDITORS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T.ACT, DISALLOW ED 13,314, UNDER SECTION 43(B) AND 21,679 UND ER SECTION 37(1) OF THE I.T.ACT . LASTLY THE DISALLOWANCE OF 1,00,000 WAS FOUND WITHOUT PROPER CONSIDERATION ITA NO.436/CTK/ 2012 3 AND CONFRONTATION OF THE MATTER. THEREFORE, THE INFLATION OF INCOME WAS ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL. ON APP EAL, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAD MOSTLY RELIED TO THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE FORUM BELOW BUT MISINTERPRETATION OF FACTS WAS MADE BY THE CIT (A) TO CONSIDER FOR GIVING BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION OF 6,42,812 FROM SUNDRY CREDITORS AND 13,314 UNDER SECTION 43(B ) AND EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO 21,679. ALTHOUGH THE SAME WERE CONSIDERED AT PARA - 7 OF THE ORDER PASSED BUT ALLEGED TO HAVE NOT FURNISHED SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WHICH LED HIM TO DISBELIEVE THE FACT AND HELD THE DISALLOWANCES AS GENUINE AND ADDITIONS ON THIS SCORE WAS SUSTAINED. THUS, BEING AGGRIEVED , THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS INDICATED ABOVE. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE INITIATING HIS ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED THAT THE REMAND REPORT WAS OBTAINED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH CLARIFIED THE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS CANNOT BE DISALLOWED INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD VERIFIED THE PURCHASES AGAINST THE SUM ON HAVING CONSIDERED THE DISALLOWABILITY OF EXPENSES AND U/S.43B. HE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOTED THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WORTH 6,42,812 HAD NOT APPEARED IN PERSON INSOFAR AS HE OBTAINED THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THEM ON HAVING SOLD THE GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTY NOTED THAT TH E ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS AGAINST THE PARTICULAR GOODS WHICH WERE NOT HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WERE TO BE SOLD IN THE ENSUING YEAR AGAINST THE GOODS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY MERELY NOTING DOWN THAT THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT IS SUBMITT ING THE BILLS RAISED ON THOSE CUSTOMERS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 WAS A MISNOMER. THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE WAS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE SUNDRY CREDITORS INCLUDING ADVAN CE FROM CUSTOMERS AT ITA NO.436/CTK/ 2012 4 35,60,524 U/S.68 WHEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE SUNDRY CREDITORS OF 29,15,524 RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO 6,45000 ONLY. HE ARGUED THAT THE NAMES OF THE CUSTOMERS WERE GIVEN ALONG WITH THEIR ADDRESSES AND THE SUBSEQUENT SALES TO THEM ADJUSTED AGAINST THIS AMOUNT CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR U/S.68 INSOFAR AS GOODS HAVE BEEN SOLD TO THEM WHICH GOODS WERE NOT ACCORDING TO THE CUSTOMERS SATISFACTION WAS THEREFORE PURCHASED AND SOLD WHICH CANNOT BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HE PERUSED THE BALANCE SHEET WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY SHOWN AGAINST CLOSING STOCK OF MORE THAN 49 LAKHS WHEN THE SALES IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WERE APPROXIMATELY 29 LAKHS ONLY. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A TRADER OF HARDWARE AND SANITARY GOODS WAS HAVING CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT WITH SBI, TULSIPUR WHEN THE AMOUNT OWED TO THE BA NK OF 9,09,650 WAS AGAINST THE GOODS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT CLARIFY THAT THE ONUS STOOD DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE INCOM PLIANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION68.ASSUMING BUT NOT ACCEPTING THE INCOME BEING IDENTIFIED AS SAME CANNOT BE TAXED AGAIN IS WHAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO INTERPRET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T.ACT. 3.1. WITH RESPECT T O THE SECOND ISSUE HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CHALLANS BEING THE ENTRY TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN (PLACED ON PAPER BOOK) WHICH CLARIFY THAT THE AMOUNTS HAD BEEN PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN THEREFORE WA S WRONGLY CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) INSOFAR AS THE EVIDENCE REGARDING PAYMENT OF ENTRY TAX HAS BEEN MISCONSTRUED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS VAT/SALES TAX. ITA NO.436/CTK/ 2012 5 3.2. WITH RESPECT TO THE LAST ISSUE BEING DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE EXPENSES ON AD H OC BASI S IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE MISC. EXPENSES ARE ONLY 8,523WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TRIED TO CLUB ALONG WITH THE PACKING AND FORWARDING, BANK CHARGES WHICH HE HAS DISALLOWED AS NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME I N VIEW OF THE FA C T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE VOUCHERS BEFORE IT. HE LEFT IT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH INSOFAR AS THE CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE UNDER THE SPECIFIC HEAD AND NOT MISC.CHARGES WHEN THE BANK CHARGES COULD BE EVIDENCED BY BANK STATEMENT AND NOT OTHERWISE WHICH WAS ALRE ADY BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES. 4. THE LEARNED DR OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THE SUNDRY CREDITORS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSOFAR AS THE SUNDRY CRED ITORS ARE ABOUT 29 LAKHS IS AGAINST PURCHASE OF 42 LAKHS ONLY. SIMILARLY WHEN THE SALES HAVE BEEN MADE AMOUNTING TO APPROXIMATELY 28 LAKHS THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO RECEIVE ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING 49 LAKHS WORT H OF STOCK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE RIGHTLY NOTED IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE AND SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE RELATED AND IT IS ASSESSEES OWN MONEY HELD IN THE NAME OF THE CUSTOMERS ADVANCE OR AS SUNDRY CREDITO RS. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY BY THE BE NCH WHETHER THE REVENUE IS ON APPEAL ON THE ISSUE OF 6,42,812 DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHETHER COULD BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPLICATION OF THE REMAND REPORT TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE LEARNED DR ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE WHEN THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS NOT TYP OGRAPHICAL ERROR ALSO INSOFAR AS SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE NOT THE SAME CUSTOMERS WHO HAD GIVEN ADVANCE WHICH LIST WAS GIVEN SEPARATELY WAS TO BE CONSIDERED U/S.68 WAS O N THE BASIS OF BILLS RAISED ON THESE CUSTOMERS IN THE ITA NO.436/CTK/ 2012 6 SUBSEQUENT YEAR FORMING PART OF THE PAPER BOOK. THERE IS NO APPEAL BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE, THEREFORE, THE LEARNED DR CONTINUED THAT THE SUM OF 6,45,000 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADVANCE AGAINST FUTURE SALES THEREFORE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR CONFIRMATION. 4.1. WITH RESPECT TO THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.43B, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTRY TAX CHALLANS WERE NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES THEREFORE WERE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B WHEN THE RETURN WAS FILED AND CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.144. 4.2. ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO 21,679 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RENDERED ANY DETAIL FOR HAVING INCURRED THOSE EXPENSES WERE THEREFORE RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 5. 1. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL S UBMISSIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE AGAINST BILLS WHICH HAVE BEEN HELD AS PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INDICATING THE IDENT ITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SELLERS OF THE GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE PRESCRIBED ON THEIR BILLS . THEREFORE, THE ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE U/S.68 FOR NON - APPEARANCE OF THE CREDITORS WHEN BY WAY OF A REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWED SUNDRY CREDITORS TO WHO HAD NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM WAS 6,42,812. THIS MEANS THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING STOCK WORTH OF MORE THAN 49 LAKHS WAS SHOWN AS A LIABILITY SUFFERS FROM NO INFIRMITY INSOFAR AS SECTION 68 COULD NOT BE APPLIED. IT IS NOT A CASH CREDIT. HOWEVER, WITH ITA NO.436/CTK/ 2012 7 RESPECT TO 6,45,000 WHICH ARE CASH CREDITS WERE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) INSOFAR AS T HE SALES THEREOF HAD BEEN MADE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR INSOFAR AS A DEBTOR CANNOT BECOME A CREDITOR WHEN THE INCOME WAS TO BE CONSIDERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE INCOME FROM 6,45,000 HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HE ENSUING ASSESSMENT YEAR THEREFORE COULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAX IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT INSOFAR AS THE ONUS LAY DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68.THE LEARNED DRS SUBMISSION THAT IT IS ASSE SSEES OWN MONEY IN THE GARB OF ITS RELATIVE HAVING INCOMPLETE ADDRESSES IS OF NO AVAIL INSOFAR AS THE SALES DO NOT REQUIRE THE COMPLETE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE BUYERS. IT IS THE CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE PAID WHATEVER AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOLD THE HARDWAR E AND SANITARY GOODS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR LIKING WAS NOT DISPUTED. THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE SPECIALLY WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 ONLY REQUIRES T HE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS TO BE ESTABLISHED TO THAT AMOUNT WHICH MAY NOT BE INCOME. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING A VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CONCERNED ONLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 8 - 09 AND NOT 20 09 - 10 WHEN THE INCOME IF AT ALL WAS GENERATED COULD BE TAXED IN THAT YEAR. A PORTION OF THE ONUS DISCHARGED I.E., SALES, IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE CANNOT BE TERMED FIT FOR TAXATION U/S.68.THEADDITONOF 6,45,000 IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED . 5.2. WITH RESPECT TO THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.43B, WE PERUSED THE ENTRY TAX CHALLANS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS CERTIFIED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE AUTHORITIES MISDIRECTED THEMSELVES THAT THEY REQUIRE THE ITA NO.436/CTK/ 2012 8 CHALLANS FOR VAT/SALES TAX AND NOT ENTRY TAX. THE CHALLANS HAVE BEEN PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43 B BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN CANNOT BE DISALLOWED AND IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 5.3. WITH RESPECT TO THE LAST ISSUE BEING THE DISALLOWANCE AS MISC. EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO 21,679 THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS LEFT IT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE B ENCH WITHOUT BRINGING OUR ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON THE ISSUE EXCEPT THA T THE BANK CHARGES ARE INSCRIBED IN THE BANK STATEMENT AND CLAIMED BY THE BANK THEREFORE COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED FOR WANT OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS. THEREFORE, A SUM OF 21,679 DISALLOWED OUT OF MISC.EXPENSES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED C IT(A) IS RESTRICTED TO 13,959 WHEN THE BANK CHARGES ARE DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED IN FULL. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. SD/ - SD/ - ( . . . ) , (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( ) DATE: 23.11.2012 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. / THE APPELLANT : SHRI SUBHAKANTA SWAIN, PROP. M/S.RUCHIKA SANITARY AND HARDWARE STORE, C.D.A.ROAD, BIDANASI, CUTTACK. 2 / THE RESPONDENT: INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4),CUTTACK. 3. / THE CIT, 4. ( ) / THE CIT( A), 5. / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6. GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, ( ), (H.K.PADHEE), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY. ITA NO.436/CTK/ 2012 9 APPENDIX XVII SEAL TO BE AFFIXED ON THE ORDER SHEET BY THE SR. P.S./P.S. AFTER DICTATION IS GIVEN 1. DATE OF DICTATION 20.11.2012 . 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 21.11.2012 OTHE R MEMBER . 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 . 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 23.11.2012 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 T HE ORDER ................ 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER ..