J.R. Synthetics Pvt.Ltd., Surat V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Surat

ITA 616/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 61620514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAY RAJ KUMAR
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.616 / AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 M/S. J.R. SYNTHETIC P. LTD., Z-1201, SURAT TEXTILE MARKET, RING ROAD, SURAT. VS. ITO, WARD 1(3), SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : AAACJ5473B (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAMESH MALPANI, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI JAYRAJ KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 07.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.10.11 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - I, SURAT DATED 15.01.2009 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REJECTION OF AUDI TED ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT AND ALSO ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,48,229/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF GROSS PROFIT. 2) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSINGS STOCK OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS TO EXTENT OF PRODUCTION O F FIRST FIVE DAYS OF NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY I S ENGAGED IN THE I.T.A.NO.616 /AHD/2009 2 BUSINESS OF PROCESSING OF FABRICS ON JOB WORK BASIS AND FOR OWN PURPOSE ALSO. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT DURING THIS YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TURNOVER OF RS.2215.33 LACS AND THE GROSS PRO FIT ON SUCH TURNOVER IS SHOWN AT THE RATIO OF 7.57% WHEREAS, IN THE PREC EDING YEAR, THE GP RATE WAS SHOWN @ 7.58% ON THE TURNOVER OF RS.1245.59 LAC S, WHICH WAS FINALLY DETERMINED @ 8.75% BY THE A.O. WHILE PASSIN G THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, THE A.O. ISSUED A QUESTIONNAIRE ALONG WITH NOTICE U/S 142(1) AND IN REPLY, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O. FORM TIME TO TIME AND FURN ISHED THE DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE A.O. THEREAFTER, IT IS NOTED BY TH E A.O. IN PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ASKE D TO PROVIDE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF STOCK BEING A MANUFACTURING UNIT. THE A.O. FURTHER NOTED IN PARA 5 THAT NO QUANTITATIVE DETAILS HAD BE EN FURNISHED IN THE DESIRED FORMAT AND NO COMMENT ON THE MAINTENANCE OF DAY TO DAY RECORD OF CONSUMPTION WAS MADE WHILE REPLYING THE RELEVANT QUESTIONNAIRE. THE A.O. FURTHER NOTED THAT FRESH QUERY WAS RAISED IN T HIS REGARD AND IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN COLOUR AND CHEMICALS, THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF ITEMS / QUALITIES HAVING DIFFERENT UNTI ES OF MEASUREMENTS I.E. KG., LTRS. AND ALSO IN PIECES AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR THIS REASON, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN DAY TO DAY REGISTER THEREO F. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH DAY TO DAY STOCK REGISTER OF COLOUR A ND CHEMICALS IS NOT MAINTAINED BUT AVERAGE COST OF COLOUR AND CHEMICALS HAS NOT GONE UP DURING THIS YEAR. THE A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED AND H E HELD THAT SINCE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING DAY TO DAY STOCK REGIST ER, QUANTITY OF CLOSING STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE YEAR END CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CORRECT AND THE SAME WILL AUTOMATICALLY EFFECT THE BOOK RESULT AND, I.T.A.NO.616 /AHD/2009 3 THEREFORE, BOOK RESULT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RELIABLE. THE A.O. INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT O HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF S.N. NAMASIVAYAM CHETTIAR AS REPORTED IN 38 ITR 579. AND ALSO ON ANOTHER JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CAS E OF BRITISH PAINTS AS REPORTED IN 188 ITR 44. THE A.O. HAD GIVEN OTHE R REASONS ALSO FOR REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS BY REPRODUCING A CHART O F MONTH-WISE POWER CONSUMPTION AND LABOUR EXPENSES IN AN ABSOLUTE MANN ER AND ALSO THE COST THEREOF PER MTR. OF PRODUCTION AND HAS COMMENTED ON PAGE 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED PER MTR. POWER EXPENSES AT RS.0.95 PER MTR. IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2005 BUT IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2006, THE SAME IS CLAIMED AT RS.0.44 PER MTR. AND T HE COST DIFFERENCE IS MORE THAN DOUBLE. REGARDING LABOUR EXPENSES, HE NO TED THAT IN THE MONTH OF FEB. 2006, LABOUR EXPENSES CLAIMED AT RS.0.22 PE R MTR. BUT IN THE MONTH OF MAY 2005, THE SAME IS CLAIMED AT RS. 0.08 PER MTR., WHICH IS ALMOST ONE THIRD. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE DIFFERENC E BETWEEN PRODUCTION QUANTITY IN COMPARISON TO INCREASE IN POWER AND LAB OUR CHARGES IN DIFFERENT MONTHS IS NOT COMMENSURATE. ON THIS AS PECT ALSO, HE RAISED QUERY AND IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THEY ASSESS EE THAT THE AVERAGE COST PER MTR. ON ACCOUNT OF POWER CONSUMPTION AND LABOUR MAY DIFFER IN DIFFERENT MONTHS FOR VARIOUS REASONS. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT IN THE MONTH OF FULL PRODUCTION, THE AVERAGE COST WILL BE LESS A S BIGGER LOTS ARE PROCESSED WHEREAS, IN THE MONTHS OF RECESSIONARY PE RIOD, WHEN SMALLER LOTS ARE PROCESSED, THE COST PER MTR. WILL BE HIGH. THE A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THIS REPLY ALSO AND HE REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS. HE NOTED ON PAGE 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IN ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-067, G.P. WAS DETERMINED BY THE A.O. @ 8.75% AS AGAINST DECLA RED G.P. BY THE I.T.A.NO.616 /AHD/2009 4 ASSESSEE IN THAT YEAR OF 7.57%. HE ALSO NOTED THA T IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, G.P. RATIO REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 11 .63%. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. THAT PER MTR. G.P. IN THE PRESENT YEAR IS RS.0.79 PER MTR. AS AGAINST RS.0.73 PER MTR . IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND EVEN IF ADDITION MADE IN THE LAST YEAR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THEN ALSO, THE G.P. OF THE LAST YEAR WORKS OUT TO RS.0.81 PER MTR. AND THEREFORE, THE G.P. OF THE PRESENT YEAR IN TERMS OF G.P. PER MTR. IS AT PAR AND HENCE, NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED IN THE PR ESENT YEAR. THE A.O. HAS CONSIDERED ALL THESE SUBMISSIONS AND FINALLY HE LD THAT CONSIDERING THE INCREASE IN SALES TURNOVER, G.P. RATIO IN THE PRESE NT YEAR IS DETERMINED @ 8% AND ON THIS BASIS, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.9,48,2 29/-. 3. APART FROM THIS, THE A.O. ALSO PROPOSED ADDITION OF RS.6,35,846/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOW VALUATION OF W.I.P. BUT H E ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING REGARDING G.P. ADDITION MADE BY HIM AND DID NOT MAKE ANY SEPARATE ADDITION IN THE COMPUTATION ON AC COUNT OF ALLEGED UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF W.I.P. 4. ON BOTH THESE ISSUES, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE M ATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HELD THAT G.P. ADDITION IS RI GHTLY MADE BY THE A.O. AND REGARDING THE PROPOSED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF A LLEGED UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF W.I.P., IT WAS HELD B Y HIM THAT THE A.O. SHOULD VERIFY THE PRODUCTION/DISPATCH FIGURES FROM THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST 5 DAYS OF THE NEXT YEAR AND IF THE PRODUCTION IS ONLY 155386 MTRS, THE SAME SHOULD BE ADOPTED AND OTHERWI SE, THE FIGURE OF 2,96,804 MTRS. CALCULATED BY THE A.O. WILL REMAIN T HE SAME. THE 2 ND ISSUE WAS PARTLY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US ON BOTH THE ISSUES. I.T.A.NO.616 /AHD/2009 5 5. LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME ARG UMENTS WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT MAINTAINING OF STOCK RE GISTER OF COLOUR AND CHEMICALS IS NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THIS REASON TH AT THERE ARE NUMEROUS ITEMS HAVING DIFFERENT UNITS SUCH AS KG. LTRS. AND PIECES. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT MERELY FOR THIS REASON THAT STOCK RE GISTER IS NOT MAINTAINED, REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ST. TERESAS OIL MILL S VS STATE OF KERALA (1970) 76 ITR 365 (KER.). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ITO VS M/S. INDOKE N INDUSTRIES IN I.T.A.NO. 4013/AHD/2008 DATED 29.01.2010, COPY OF W HICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 4-17 OF THE PAPER BOOK. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS JACKSONS HOUSE (2011) 198 TAXMAN 385 (DEL.). HE AL SO PLACED RELIANCE ON ANOTHER TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE O F DHARMESH SILK MILLS P. LTD. VS ITO IN I.T.A.NO. 4108/AHD/2007 DATED 21. 08.2009 COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 22-25 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON ANOTHER TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN T HE CASE OF MAMTA SILK MILLS P. LTD., VS ITO IN I.T.A.NO. 1669/AHD/2008 DA TED 11.02.2011 AND SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 1- 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 6. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. REGARDING THE FIRST ASPECT AS TO WHETHER THE A.O. WAS JUSTIFI ED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ADOPTING G.P. RATE OF 8%, WE FIND TH AT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNA L DECISION RENDERED IN I.T.A.NO.616 /AHD/2009 6 THE CASE OF MAMTA SILK MILLS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE ALSO IDENTICAL. IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT WERE REJECTED BY THE A.O. BY MAKING THE OBSERVATION THAT THE FUEL EXPENS ES VARY FROM AS LOW AS RS.0.94 IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER TO AS HIGH AT R S.2.93 IN THE MONTH OF MAY AND LABOUR EXPENSES VARIED FROM AS LOW AT RS .1.02 IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER TO AS HIGH AT RS.1.51 IN THE MONTH OF AP RIL. IN THAT CASE ALSO, IT WAS STATED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING QUANTITATIVE RECORD AND DAY TO DAY CONSUMPTION OF R AW MATERIAL OF COLOUR AND CHEMICALS AND HENCE, THE CONSUMPTION OF THE SAM E WAS UNVERIFIABLE. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL. IN THAT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED ANOTHER TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF INDOKEN INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED ANOTHER TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF DHARMESH SILK MILLS P. LTD. VS ITO (SUPRA) AND IT WAS HELD T HAT THIS WAS NOT A FIT CASE TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE TRIBUNAL DECISIONS, WE HOLD THAT IN THE PRESENT CAS E ALSO, THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HENCE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.9,48,229/- BY ADOPTING G.P. RATE OF 8% I S NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME IS DELETED. REGARDING THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE A.O. ON TWO JUDGEMENTS, WE FIND THAT THE SAME ARE NOT APPLICABL E BEING DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. 8. NOW, WE FIND THAT SINCE THE G.P. ADDITION IS DEL ETED, THE 2 ND ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UND ER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF W.I.P. OF RS.6,35,846/- WHICH WAS PARTLY REDUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A), REMAINS THE EFFECTIVE ADDITION BECAUSE THE ADDITION WAS NOT SEPARATELY MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF GIVING TH E BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING OF G.P. ADDITION BUT SINCE THE G.P. ADD ITION IS DELETED, THIS I.T.A.NO.616 /AHD/2009 7 ADDITION BECOMES INDEPENDENT ADDITION. WITH REGARD TO THIS ADDITION, REGARDING ALLEGED UNDER VALUATION OF STOCK OF W.I.P ., IT WAS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IF THE FIGURE OF PRODUCTION OF 1 ST FIVE DAYS OF THE NEXT YEAR COULD BE SEEN, THERE IS NO PR ODUCTION ON THE FIRST FOUR DAYS AND PRODUCTION OF 155386 MTRS. IS ON 5.4. 2006 AND IT GOES TO SHOW THAT ON 31.03.2006, VERY SMALL PROCESSING WAS DONE AND MAJOR PROCESSING WAS DONE IN THE NEXT YEAR ONLY AND HENCE , IN VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK OF W.I.P. AS ON 31.03.2006, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT 50% OF THE PROCESSING WAS DONE AS HAS BEEN STATED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 13 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON THIS ACCOUNT, WE DO NOT FIND A NY FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. THAT SINCE THERE IS NO P RODUCTION IN FIRST 4 DAYS OF THE NEXT YEAR, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT 50% OF WOR K WAS DONE BY 31.03.2006. WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS ALSO WORKED OUT THE AVERAGE COST FOR THE WHOLE YEAR AT RS.6.98 PER MTR AND HAS ADOPT ED THE RATE OF RS.3.49 PER MTR FOR VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK OF W.I.P. EV EN IF THE PROCESSING DONE UP TO 31.03.2006 WAS NOT 50% OF THE TOTAL PROC ESSING REQUIRED FOR FINISHING THE PRODUCT, THE RATE OF RS. 3.49 ADOPTED BY THE A.O. IS NOT EXCESSIVE PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THIS FACT THAT IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO INCREASE IN LABOUR COST IN THE MONTH OF FEB AND MARCH 2006 THAT THERE IS RATE INCREASE FORM THE MON TH OF FEB 2006 AND HENCE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUING CLOSING STOCK OF W.I.P. AS ON 31.03.2006, LABOUR RATES FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2006 HAS TO BE ADOPTED AND NOT THE AVERAGE RATE OF THE WHOLE YEAR. IN ADDITION TO THI S, IT IS ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO INCREASE IN ELECTRICITY EXPENSE THAT WHEN THE BATCH IS SMALL, COST PER MTR. GOES UP . MOREOVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING DAY TO DAY STOCK REGIST ER REGARDING CONSUMPTION OF COLOUR AND CHEMICALS WHICH CONSTITUT ES THE MAJOR PORTION I.T.A.NO.616 /AHD/2009 8 OF THE COST OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO EXACTLY WORK OUT THE COST INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF W.I.P. LYING IN CLOSING STOCK AT THE END OF THE YEAR. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE SAME HAS T O BE ESTIMATED ONLY AND THE ESTIMATE WAS DONE BY THE A.O. BY HOLDING THAT 5 0% OF THE PROCESSING WAS DONE AND IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT IS REASO NABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. REGARDING THE Q UANTUM OF CLOSING STOCK OF W.I.P., DIRECTION HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN B Y THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE A.O. TO EXAMINE THE PRODUCTION RECORD OF FIRST FIVE DAYS OF THE NEXT YEAR AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE PRODUCTION IS ONLY 1553 86 MTRS. IN THE FIRST FIVE DAYS OF THE NEXT YEAR, THE SAME SHOULD BE ADOPTED A ND OTHERWISE THE FIGURE OF 296804 MTRS. CALCULATED BY THE A.O. WILL REMAIN THE SAME. REGARDING THE RATES ADOPTED BY THE A.O. FOR VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK OF W.I.P., WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION, NO INTERF ERENCE IS CALLED FOR FROM OUR SIDE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRES ENT CASE BECAUSE THE SAME HAS TO BE ESTIMATED ONLY IN THE ABSENCE OF PRO PER RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DECISION BY THE A.O. APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE THEREFORE, DECLINE T O INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED WHEREAS GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH OCT., 2011. SD./- SD./- (T.K.SHARMA) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED : 14.10. 2011 SP I.T.A.NO.616 /AHD/2009 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 10/10 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER13/10 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S.13/10 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 14/10/11 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.14/10 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 14/1 0/11 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. ..