Shri Abbas Nabi Shekh, SILVASSA V. The ACIT., Vapi Circle, Vapi

ITA 621/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60565 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD , ! '#, $% $ & BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.621/AHD/2010 ( ! ) ! ) ! ) ! ) / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SHRI ABBAS NABI SHAIKH 11, WOODLAND COMPLEX SILVASSA, U.T. OF D & N.H. ! ! ! ! / VS. THE ASST.CIT, VAPI CIRCLE VAPI * $% ./+, ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AHHPS 2732 F ( *- / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENT ) *- 0 $ / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K.PATEL, A.R. ./*- 1 0 $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.L.YADAV, SR. D.R. !2 1 % / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 02/07/2012 34) 1 % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6/7/12 $5 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FR OM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-VALSAD DATED 26.02.2009. GRO UNDS RAISED ARE AS UNDER:- 01. THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AN D PREJUDICIAL TO THE APPELLANT. 02. ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER AND ITA NO.621/AHD/ 2010 SHRI ABBAS NABI SHAIKH VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 2 - CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE CONTRARY TO LAW AND BASED ON ERRONEOUS UNDERSTA NDING OF THE FACTS. 03. ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND INTERPRETATION OF LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S.80I B OF THE ACT FROM THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS THAT THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IS FORMED BY RECONSTRUCTION OF A BUSINE SS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS AND SURMISES, AN D IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DESERVE S TO BE DELETED. 04.ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION TO THE APPELLANT U/S.80IB OF THE INCOME T AX ACT. 2. THE REGISTRY HAS INFORMED THAT THIS APPEAL WAS B ELATEDLY FILED BY ABOUT 270 DAYS. AS PER THE CONDONATION PETITION, T HE APPELLANT HAS INFORMED THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE ON THE PART OF HI S STAFF-MEMBER WHO HAS MISPLACED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) , THEREFORE, THE SECOND APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED WITHIN THE PRESCRI BED TIME. WE FIND THAT IN THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF N.BALAKRISHNAN VS. M KRISHNAMURTHY 85 AIR 3222 (SC ) AND COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST.KATIJI & ORS. 62 CTR 23(SC ), IT WAS OBSERVED THAT A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGIN G AN APPEAL LATE. HENCE, IT WAS DIRECTED THAT A MERITORIOUS MATTER SH OULD NOT BE THROWN-OUT AT THE VERY THRESHOLD BECAUSE BY REFUSING THE OPPOR TUNITY MAY CAUSE DEFEAT OF JUSTICE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS BY FOLLOWING THE CITED PRECE DENTS, WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL ON MERITS AS UNDER. ITA NO.621/AHD/ 2010 SHRI ABBAS NABI SHAIKH VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 3 - 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD.AR MR.M.K.PATEL HAS EXPRESSED NOT TO PRESS GROUND NOS.1 & 2, HENCE DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED . 4. GROUND NOS.3 & 4 ARE CONNECTED WITH EACH OTHER A ND WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE AN OR DER U/S.143(3) DATED 6/12/2008 AS WELL AS LEARNED CIT(APPEALS); BOTH HAV E EXPRESSED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM WAS BASED UPON THE FINDIN GS OF THE PAST YEARS MADE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THE CLAIM U/S.80IB(2) WAS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING SHOUL D NOT BE FORMED BY SPLITTING UP OR RE-CONSTRUCTION OF A BUSINESS A LREADY IN EXISTENCE. HOWEVER, THIS VERY ISSUE NOW STOOD SETTLED BY ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD PRONOUNCED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE TITLED AS SHRI ABBAS NABI SHAIKH VS. ASST.CIT IN AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 BEARING ITA NOS.1496 & 2586/AHD/2007, ORDER DATED 22/10/2010, W HEREIN AN EARLIER ORDER HAS BEEN REFERRED AND DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:- 14. IT WOULD BE A CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION IF AT TH E SAME PLACE WHERE THE ALREADY EXISTING UNIT IS FUNCTIONING NEW/ ADDITIONAL MACHINERY/PLANT ARE INSTALLED OR NEW CAPITAL IS INF USED OR CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS AND ALTERATIONS IN THE PROCESS FOR MA NUFACTURING THE PRODUCT IS CARRIED OUT AND THERE IS A CONTINUITY O F THE ACTIVITIES OF THE BUSINESS IN THE SAME INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. BU T WHERE AT A NEW LOCATION INDEPENDENT OF THE EARLIER EXISTING UN IT, NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY ARE PURCHASED AND INSTALLED, NEW CAPI TAL IS INVESTED THEN IT WOULD BE A CASE OF SETTING UP OF A NEW UNIT EVEN THOUGH FOR CARRYING OUT THE SAME BUSINESS, THE ESSE NTIAL DIFFERENCE LIES IN CHANGE IN LOCATION AND INSTALLATION OF NEW INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE FORM OF FACTORY BUILDING AND PLANT AND MACHINER Y, WHETHER ASSESSEE CARRIES OUT THE SAME BUSINESS OR DIFFERENT BUSINESS IS NOT ITA NO.621/AHD/ 2010 SHRI ABBAS NABI SHAIKH VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 4 - AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT TO HOLD IT IS A RECONSTRUCT ION OR NOT. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING IT AS A CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION MERELY BECAUSE CONTINUED TO CARRY ON THE SAME BUSINESS IN THE NEW UNIT ALSO. ON THE BASIS THAT- O LD UNIT DID NOT FUNCTION OR IT HAS STOPPED ACTIVITIES MAY GIVE RISE TO AN IMPRESSION THAT THE NEW UNIT IS THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. BUT CARRYING ON THE SAME BUSINESS IN THE NEW UNIT IS NOT SUFFICIENT AT ITS OWN TO HOLD THAT THE NEW UNIT IS A RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE UNLESS LOCATION IS TH E SAME AND THERE IS NO INSTALLATION OF NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY. THE OLD UNIT MAY STOP FUNCTIONING IMMEDIATELY OR AFTER SOMETIME. IF OLD UNIT RUNS PARALLEL FOR SOME TIME AND THEREAFTER IT STOP FUNCTIONING THEN IT IS NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. ONE CANNOT SAY THAT IF OLD UNIT STOPS FUNCTIONING IMMEDIATELY ON THE START OF NEW UNIT IT WOULD BE A CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION AND IF OLD UNIT S TOPS FUNCTIONING AFTER A YEAR OR SO, AFTER THE NEW UNIT STARTS FUNCT IONING, IT WILL NOT BE A CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. FURTHER, IF THE ARGUMENT OF THE ID. DR IS ACCEPTED THEN SEVERAL UNIT'S WHERE SAME BUSINESS IS CARRIED OUT, WOULD AL WAYS BE TREATED AS RECONSTRUCTION OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENC E AND THUS DENYING THE BENEFIT OTHERWISE AVAILABLE TO THE TAX PAYER, THEREFORE, CARRYING ON THE SAME BUSINESS IN THE NEW UNIT OR ST OPPAGE OF BUSINESS IN THE OLD UNIT CANNOT BE A CRITERIA TO HO LD THAT IT IS A CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE . SIMILAR VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1636/ AHD/2009 FOR ASST.YEAR 2002-03 IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S.COMPUT ER FORCE, VIDE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30.7.2010 VIDE PARA 8 TO 10 AS UNDER: '8. THOUGH, THE ISSUE OR, FACTS CAN EASILY BE DECID ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ON THE FACT OF IT. THIS IS NEI THER A CASE OF RE- CONSTRUCTION NOR A SPLITTING UP OF AN ALREADY EXIST ING BUSINESS, BUT FORMATION OF AN ALTOGETHER NEW INDUSTRIAL UNIT, HOWEVER, DUE TO A TECHNICAL QUESTION BEING RAISED BY THE A.O. HE NCE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IS REQUIRED. ON CAREFUL APPRAI SAL OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, U IS A CLEAR CUT CASE OF A NEW B USINESS UNDERTAKING WHICH WAS SET UP DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. BUT BEFORE APPRECIATING THOSE FACTUA L MATRIX WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE REASONS OF THE AO WHICH APPEA RS TO BE INNOVATIVE AND IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING OF STATU TE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYES OF LAW. WORDS AND EXPRESSIONS USED IN THE ITA NO.621/AHD/ 2010 SHRI ABBAS NABI SHAIKH VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 5 - STATUTE HAVE LEGAL MEANING. WORDS WHICH EXPRESSED A LEGAL CONCEPT MUST HAVE ATTRIBUTED TO THEIR LEGAL MEANING . MEANING THEREBY A TECHNICAL WORD USED IN A STATUTE MUST HAV E A TECHNICAL SENSE PRECISELY ASCRIBED TO THEM AND THOSE TECHNICA L WORDS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN A MEANING IN POPULAR SENSE. WE LAKE SUPPORT OF MAXIM 'UTI LOQUITOR VULGUS (SOURCE 35 1TR 662). SO, THE PRINCIPLE OF COGENCY, LOGIC, COHERENCE ETC, IS TO A PPLY WHEN THE WORDS IN QUESTION REPRESENT LEGAL CONCEPTION. THE D IFFICULTY WITH THE AO WAS THAT HE HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IN Q UESTION HAS TRANSFERRED ITS 'BUSINESS ACTIVITY' FROM OLD UNIT T O THE NEW UNIT. IS IF THE TECHNICAL TERM USED IN THIS SECTION? ANSW ER TO THIS QUESTION IS IN NEGATIVE. HOWEVER, THE ENTIRE ORDER OF THE AO REVOLVE AROUND THE GENERA! MEANING OF 'TRANSFER OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY' BUT CONTRARY TO THIS, THE SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80IB IS PRESCRIBING SOME OTHER TECHNICAL TERMS, SUCH AS THE 'INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING' SHOULD NOT BE FORMED BY 'SPLITTING UP' OR 'RECONSTRUCTION' OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE . LIKEWISE SUB-CLAUSE (II) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80IB OF THE IT ACT, 1961 PRESCRIBES THAT THE 'INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING' S HOULD NOT BE FORMED BY THE TRANSFER OF 'MACHINERY OR PLANT PREVI OUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE'. THE AO HAS NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE WITH IN THE SCOPE OF THESE LEGAL TERMINOLOGIES AND MISCONCEIVED THE S AME BY SUBSTITUTING THE WORD 'TRANSFERRED THE BUSINESS ACT IVITY', FOR THAT REASONING, THE AO HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON GAEKWAR FO RM AND RUBBER COMPANY LTD. REPORTED AS 35 ITR 662 (BOM). B UT IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD TAKEN OVER ALL THE A SSETS OF THE BUSINESS OF A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING US GOODWILL. IN LIEN OF THE CONSIDERATION, FACTS OF THAT CASE HAVE REVEALED THA T SHARES WERE ALLOTTED THEREFORE, THE SAID DECISION OF THE HON. B OMBAY HIGH COURT WAS IN RESPECT OF A BUSINESS WHICH WAS TRAM/E RRED LOCK, STOCK AND BARREL FROM ONE CONCERN TO ANOTHER CONCER N. CONTRARY TO THAT AT PRESENT THE FACTS ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFERE NT BECAUSE ADMITTEDLY A NEW PLACE WAS ALLOCATED AT KACHIGAM DA MAN ON WHICH A NEW TECHNOLOGY WAS DEPLOYED FOR MANUFACTURI NG NEW INSTRUMENTS, NAMELY 'TELEPHONE CALL MONITORS' AND ' COIN PAY PHONES' UNDER THE ROOF OF A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUSIN ESS PREMISES. PACTS HAVE UNDISPUTEDLY DEMONSTRATED THAT BUSINESS AS A WHOLE WAS NOT TRANSFERRED FROM OLD UNIT TO NEW UNIT. ASSE TS AND LIABILITIES OF THE OLD UNIT REMAINED UNDISPUTED AS FOUND FROM THE POSITION OF THE DEPRECIATION CHART. EVEN THE ALLEGA TION OF TRANSFER OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY ILL FOUNDED BECAUSE O F THE REASON ITA NO.621/AHD/ 2010 SHRI ABBAS NABI SHAIKH VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 6 - THAT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY, I.E. MANUFACTURING OF T ELEPHONE INSTRUMENTS WAS BASED UPON AN ALTOGETHER NEW TECHNO LOGY. 9. AN ANOTHER FACT HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO BUT IN A DIFFERENT MANNER. THE FAD WAS THAT THE OLD UNIT AT MOGARWADA DAMON WAS CLOSED DOWN IN THE YEAR 1998. THIS FACT W AS MOULDED BY THE AO IN THE FARM THAT THE SAID OLD UNIT WAS CL OSED DOWN WHICH HAD GIVEN BIRTH TO A NEW UNIT AT A DIFFERENT PLACE BY SHIFTING THE BUSINESS FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER. EV EN (HIS REASONING OF THE AO CANNOT BE APPROVED BECAUSE THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE OLD UNIT HAD GIVE A BIRTH TO N EW UNIT HAD NO LEGAL BASIS NO LEGAL SANCTITY AND ABOVE ALL WITHOUT , ANY COGENT EVIDENCE. UNDISPUTEDLY THE NEW UNIT CAME INTO EXIS TENCE AFTER THE GAP OF FEW YEARS. IT WAS UNDISPUTEDLY STARTED IN THE YEAR 2002, SURPRISINGLY THE AO HAS CITED THE DECISION O F HON. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CANARA WIRE AND WIRE PRODUCTS LTD VS. CIT REPORTED AS 196 JTR 426 (KAR). IT IS IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80I OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE HON. HON.COURT HAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MERELY INVESTED LARGE AMOUNT IN AN ALREADY EXISTING UNIT. BECAUSE OF THE NEW INSTALLATIONS THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE I N PRODUCTION CAPACITY. HOWEVER, THE COURT HAS CLARIFIED THAT A NEW UNIT MUST COME INTO EXISTENCE WHICH INDEPENDENTLY PRODUCES AR TICLES EITHER SAME OR DISTINCT AND THE NEW UNIT MUST NOT BE DEPE NDENT UPON EXISTING UNIT. EVEN THIS CONDITION OF COMING UP OF A NEW UNIT AS DESCRIBED BY THE HON. COURT HAS DULY BEEN FULFILLED BY THIS ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS ALSO TAKEN THE SHELTER OF A DE CISION OF HON. KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KERALA STATE CASH EW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. CIT REPORTED AS 205 ITR 19 (KER) HOWEVER, IN THAT CASE THE IMPUGNED COMPANY WAS FORM ED TO TAKE OVER A SICK CASHEW FACTORY. IN THAT CASE, THE COMPA NY HAD ACQUIRED THE ASSETS AND IF WAS FOUND THAT NO NEW 'I NDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ' HAD BEEN FORMED. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE SEVERAL DECISIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE THESE TERMINOLOGIES, NAMELY 'RE- CONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS' OR 'SPLITTING UP OF BUSINESS' OR EVEN 'TRANSFER OF BUSINESS' HAVE DULY BEEN DELIBERATED UPON WHICH NEE DS NO DETAILED DISCUSSION, HOWEVER, THE LIST OF THOSE DEC ISIONS ARE ALREADY MENTIONED HEREINABOVE IN PARAGRAPH NO.7 OF THIS ORDER. ON FACTS IN ADDITION TO WHATEVER STATED HEREINABOVE FEW IMPORTANT THINGS CAN BE SUMMARISED THAT THERE WAS N O EVIDENCE ITA NO.621/AHD/ 2010 SHRI ABBAS NABI SHAIKH VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 7 - WITH THE AO THROUGH WHICH IT COULD BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE MACHINERY WAS TRANSFERRED FROM OLD UNIT TO NEW UNIT , THERE WAS NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE TO SAY THAT IT WAS A CASE OF SPLITTING UP OF THE OLD BUSINESS. THE OLD UNIT WAS CLOSED DOWN WA Y BACK IN THE YEAR 1998 AND THE NEW UNIT HAD COME UP IN THE YEAR 2002 AND AN ENTIRELY NEW BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED WITH THE DEPL OYMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGY TO MANUFACTURE NEW TYPE OF TELEPHONE INSTRUMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRA TED THAT THE NEW UNIT WAS SET UP WITH THE SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN PLANT & MACHINERY. ON ACCOUNT OF THESE FACTS AS WELL AS ON ACCOUNT OF THE LEGAL POSITION AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE WE FIND NO FORCE IN THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE, HENCE DISMISSED ' 15. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80 IB IN RESPECT OF NEW UNIT. 5. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISION, WE HEREBY H OLD THAT THE ISSUE BEING COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE B ENCHES, HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM FOR THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION AS WELL. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- ( ! '# ) ( ) $% ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( MUKU L KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 6/ 7 /2012 6..!, .!../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.621/AHD/ 2010 SHRI ABBAS NABI SHAIKH VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 8 - $5 1 .7 8$7) $5 1 .7 8$7) $5 1 .7 8$7) $5 1 .7 8$7)/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 9() / THE CIT(A)-VALSAD 5. 7<= .! , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. = >2 / GUARD FILE. $5! $5! $5! $5! / BY ORDER, /7 . //TRUE COPY// ? ?? ?/ // / + + + + ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATIONON 2/7/2012 (DICTATION-PAD 4 P AGES ATTACHED) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 3/7/2012 OTHER 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 D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 6.7.12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 6.7.12 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