Assistant Commissioner of Income TAx Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore V. M/s Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha , Bagalkote

ITA 63/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5921 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Gift; Tax effect; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER WTA NOS.63 TO 65/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 TO 2004-05 THE WEALTH TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(2), BENGALURU. VS. SMT. SUBBALAKSHMI, NO.24, ANJANAMURTHY BUILDING, LOTTEGOLLAHALLI, RMV 2 ND STAGE, BENGALURU. PAN : AYFPS 5446 R. APPLELLANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR, ADDL. CIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 21.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.01.2019 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AR E DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/2/2018 PASSED BY THE CIT (A)-6, BENGALURU UNDER THE WEALTH-TAX ACT (THE ACT) FOR ASST. YEAR S 2002-03 TO 2004-05. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE A PPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED I N THE ISSUES CONTESTED BY THE REVENUE IN ALL THE 3 YEARS IS LESS THAN 2 LAKHS IN EACH OF THE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDER DATED 27/11/2018 PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN WTA NOS.66 TO 68/BANG/2018 IN THE CASE OF WTO VS. SHRI ARAVIND KUMAR, THE LD AR S UBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE LIABLE TO BE DI SMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF WTA NOS.63 TO 65/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 9 LOW TAX EFFECT AS THE SAME WILL BE COVERED BY THE I NSTRUCTION NO.2/2005 DATED 24/10/2005 ISSUED BY CBDT. 3. THE LD DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE FACTUAL ASPECTS PRESENTED BY LD AR. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBSEQUENT CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT HAS SUPERSEDED THE EARLIER CIRCULARS AND HENCE THE CIRC ULAR NO.2/2005 DATED 24/10/2005 MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CAS ES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI ARAVIND KUMAR (SUPRA) AND CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HO NBE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, CENTRAL VS. PSI HYDRAULIC S ( 2014) 226 TAXMAN 34, HAS HELD THAT THE CIRCULAR NO.2/2005 DATED 24/1 0/2005 FIXING A MONETARY LIMIT OF 2 LAKHS FOR PREFERRING APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF WEALTH-TA X APPEALS SHALL CONTINUE TO APPLY. 5. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE EXTRACT BELOW AN ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI ARAVIND K UMAR (SUPRA). THESE THREE APPEALS BY REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (APPEALS)-6, BANGALORE DT.28/2/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2003-04. 2. THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT INSTRUCTION NO.2/2005 DATED 24.10.2005 WHEREBY THE CBDT FIXED THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING APPEALS BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL AT RS.2 LAKHS. THESE BOARD'S INSTRUCTION W ERE ISSUED IN PARTIAL MODIFICATION OF INSTRUCTION NO.19 79 DATED 27.3.2000 AND INSTRUCTION NO.1985 DATED 29.62000. INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 27.3.2000 CLEARLY LAYS DO WN THAT THOSE INSTRUCTIONS FIXING THE MONETARY LIMIT F OR FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE VARIOUS APPELLATE FORUMS WILL A PPLY TO WTA NOS.63 TO 65/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 9 LITIGANTS UNDER OTHER DIRECT TAXES ALSO VIZ, WEALTH -TAX, GIFT- TAX, ESTATE DUTY, ETC. AS PER INSTRUCTION NO.1979 D ATED 273.2000, THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING APPEALS BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS FIXED AT RS.1 LAKH. INSTRUCTION NO.2/2 005 DATED 24.10.2005 IN PARA 4 CLEARLY LAYS DOWN AS FOL LOWS:- '4. SUBJECT TO THE PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 ABOVE, THE INSTRUCTION NO. 1979 DATED 27.32000 AS CLARIFIED SUBSEQUENTLY IN INSTRUCTION NO. 1985 DATED 29.6.2000, WILL CONTINUE TO GOVERN THE DECISION FOR FILING OF DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS.' 3. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT AS FAR AS APPEALS TO BE FI LED BY THE REVENUE UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 ARE CONCERNE D, THE MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL WILL RS.2 LAKHS AS PER INSTRUCTION NO.2 I 2005 DATE D 24.10.2005. THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN FILED AFTER 24.10.2005 AND THEREFORE THE MONETARY L IMIT FOR FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY THE REVENUE H AVE TO BE SATISFIED FOR MAINTAINABILITY OF APPEALS OF`-THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. FROM THE CHART OF TAX EFFECT F ILED BY THE ASSESEES WHICH IS EXTRACTED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN ALL THESE APPEALS TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY IS LESS THAN RS.2 LAKHS. 4. THE LEARNED DR HOWEVER POINTED OUT THAT CBDT HAS ISSUED CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10.12.2015 IN WHIC H THE CBDT HAD SUPERSEDED ALL THE EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS AN D IN PARTICULAR THE MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING APPEAL AS LAID DOWN IN THE SAID CIRCULAR WILL NOT APPLY TO APPEALS UNDE R OTHER DIRECT TAX LAWS EXCEPT INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ACCORD ING TO THE LEARNED DR THERE IS NO MONETARY LIMIT FOR FI LING APPEALS UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 IN VIEW OF T HE SUPERSESSION OF THE EARLIER INSTRUCTIONS ON MONETAR Y LIMITS LAID DOWN IN THE CIRCULARS PRIOR TO CIRCULAR NO.21/ 2015. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT CBDT CIRCULAR NO.2112015 IS ONE ISSUED UNDER SEC.268A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE CANNOT SUPERSEDE INSTRUCTIONS APPLICABLE TO WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957. 5. SECTION 268A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 W.R.E.F.1-4-199 9 AND IT LAYS DOWN THAT THE CBDT FROM TIME TO TIME HAS TH E WTA NOS.63 TO 65/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 9 POWER TO FIX MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING APPEALS BY AN INCOME TAX AUTHORITY UNDER CHAPTER XX OF THAT ACT. SECTION 10 OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT,1957 EMPOWERS THE CBDT TO ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS, ORDERS, DIRECTIONS TO W EALTH TAX AUTHORITIES AS IT MAY DEEM FIT FOR ADMINISTRATI ON OF THE SAID ACT. THUS THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED UNDER THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 CAN GOVERN ONLY FILING OF APPEALS UND ER THAT ACT. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 6.1.2005 AS MODIFIED BY INSTRUCTION NO.1985 DATED 29.6.2000 AND INSTRUCTION NO. 2/2005 DATED 24.10.2005 WOULD APPLY TO FILING OF APPEALS UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 AS THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 IS ONE ISSUED U/S.268A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE CANNOT SUPERSEDE A CIRCULAR WHICH WAS APPLICABLE TO FILING OF APPEALS UNDER THE WEALTH SAX ACT, 1957 VIZ., INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 27.3.2000 AS MODIFIED BY INSTRUCTION NO-1985 DATED 29.6.2000 AND INSTRUCTION NO.2/2005 DATED 24.10.200 5. THEREFORE THE MONETARY LIMIT OF RS.2 IACS FOR FILIN G APPEALS UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS LAID DOWN IN INSTRUCTION NO.2/2005 DATED 24.10.2005 WILL BE APPLICABLE FOR APPEALS FILED AFTER 24.10.2005. I N THAT VIEW: OF THE MATTER THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING A PPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE NOT SATISFIED AND THEREFORE THE APP EALS BY THE REVENUE ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THEY HAVE CO NTRARY TO THE BOARD'S INSTRUCTIONS. THE APPEALS ARE THEREF ORE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 7. BESIDES THE ABOVE, THE STAND OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT SINCE THE' ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) IS A COMMON O RDER, THE CUMULATIVE TAX EFFECT SHOULD BE SEEN. ON THIS A SPECT, HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT IN INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 27.3.2000, IT HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR THAT EVEN IN GROU P CASES CUMULATIVE TAX EFFECT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INT O CONSIDERATION. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE INSTRUCTION READS AS FOLLOWS:- 2. .. THE NEW MONETARY LIMITS WOULD APPLY WITH REFERENCE TO EACH CASE TAKEN SINGLY. IN OTHER WORDS, IN GROUP CASES, EACH CASE SHOULD WTA NOS.63 TO 65/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 9 INDIVIDUALLY SATISFY THE NEW MONETARY LIMITS. THE WORKING OUT OF MONETARY LIMITS WILL THEREFORE NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE CUMULATIVE REVENUE EFFECT AS ENVISAGED IN BOARD'S EARLIER INSTRUCTION REFERRED TO ABOVE. 5. THESE INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY TO LITIGATION UNDER OTHER DIRECT TAXES ALSO E.G. WEALTH-TAX, GIFT - TAX, ESTATE DUTY ETC.' 8. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE CUMULATIVE TAX EFFECT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. PARAGRAPH-5 OF CIRCULAR NO.3/2012 PRESCRIBING MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING APPEAL BEFOR E APPELLATE FORUMS HAD A CLAUSE WHICH PROVIDED THAT I II CASE OF A COMPOSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH COURT OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND COMMON ISSUES IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF ALL SUCH ASSESS MENT YEARS EVEN IF THE 'TAX EFFECT' IS LESS THAN THE PRE SCRIBED OF THE YEAR(S) IN WHICH THE 'TAX EFFECT' EXCEEDS THE M ONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED. 9. PARAGRAPH 5 OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.3/2012 HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, CENTRAL CIRCULAR VS. PSI HYDRAULICS (2014) 226 TAXMAN 34 (KAR). IN THE AFORE SAID DECISION, THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD MER ELY BECAUSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONSOLIDATED ORD ER PASSED FOR SEVERAL YEARS TAX EFFECT SHOULD NOT BE S EEN FOR EACH AY SEPARATELY. THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COUR T HELD THAT PARAGRAPH 5 OF CIRCULAR NO.3/2013 WAS DISCRIMINATORY AND OFFENDED ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONST ITUTION OF INDIA. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT FINALLY HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH THE CUMULATIVE TAX EFFECT IN A COMMON ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) FOR SEVERAL YEARS IS MORE THAN 10 LAKHS BUT IF THE INDIVIDUAL TAX EFFECT IN EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN CIRCULAR NO.3/2011, THE SAME SHOULD BE HELD TO BE NOT MAINTAINABLE. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, WE GIVE BELOW THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE:- WTA NOS.63 TO 65/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 9 ..PER CONTRA, SRI K. V. ARAVIND, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS REFERS TO PARA 5 OF CIRC ULAR NO. 312011, WHICH READS THUS:- '5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CALCULATE THE TAX EFFECT SEPARATELY FOR EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES IN THE CASE OF EVERY ASSESSEE. IF, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, THE DISPUTED ISSUES ARISE IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL, CAN BE FILED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN PARA 3. NO APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT SPECIFIED IN PARA 3. IN OTHER WORDS, HENCEFORTH, APPEALS CAN BE FILED ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TAX EFFECT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 1-IOWEVERI, IN CASE OF A COMPOSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH COURT OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND COMMON ISSUES IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, APPEAL SHALL BE TILED IN RESPECT OF ALL SUCH ASSESSMENT YEARS EVEN IF THE 'TAX EFFECT' IS LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED OF THE YEAR(S) IN WHICH THE 'TAX EFFECT' EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED. IN CASE WHERE A COMPOSITE ORDER/JUDGMENT INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ASSESSEE, EACH ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY.' 17. IN CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, WHERE COMMON ORDER IS PASSED IN RESPECT OF MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHICH INVOLVES COMMON ISSUES EVEN IF IN ONE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS THE TAX EFFECT IS MORE THAN RS. 10 LAKHS, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT IN RESPECT OF OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH IS PART OF THE COMMON ORDER, THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 10 IAKHS, THE REVENUE I S ENTITLED TO FILE APPEAL EVEN IN RESPECT SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR S WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKH& HOWEV ER, IN WTA NOS.63 TO 65/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 9 CASE WHERE THERE IS NO COMMON ORDER AND AN ORDER IS PASSED ONLY IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT, YEAR AND T HE TAX EFFECT THEREIN IS LESS THAN RS 10 /AKHS, THE REVENU E CANNOT FILE THE APPEAL. 18. ON THOROUGH SCRUTINY OF PARA 5 OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 312011, WE FIND THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A GLARING DISCRIMINATION OFFENDING THE SPIRIT OF ARTICLE 14 O F THE CONSTITUTION. IN THE CASE OF A COMMON ORDER PASSED IN RESPECT OF ONE OR MORE ASSESSMENT YEAR/YEARS, IF TH E TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE IS N OT ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION AND THE REVENUE IS NOT DEBARRED FROM FILING AN APPEAL, EVEN THOUGH THE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF ONE OR MORE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKHS IN OTHER WORDS, THE REVENUE CAN FILE A N APPEAL AGAINST ALL THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WHICH IS A PART OF THE COMMON ORDER, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT, WHET HER FOR ONE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR/YEARS, THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN PS. 10 LAKHS. HOWEVER, IF IT IS A SOLITARY ORD ER AND TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN PS. 10 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE IS E NTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION AND THE REVENUE CANNOT FIL E THE APPEAL. 19. THE NARA-5 OF THE CIRCULAR IS HIAHLV DISCRIMIN ATORY. AFTER ALL THE BUNCHING AND CLUBBING OF CASES AND PA SSING COMMON ORDERS IS A PROCEDURE ADOPTED FOR CONVENIENT DISPOSAL OF THE CASES BY THE COURT OR QUASI JUDICIA L AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO SAY IN THE MATTER OF CLUBBING OF CASES AND PASSING OF COMMON ORDERS. MER ELY BECAUSE THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED FOR JUDICIAL CONVEN IENCE, CLUBS THE CASES AND PASS COMMON ORDER, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED OF THE BENEFIT OF CIRCULAR-312 011 WHEN THE TAX EFFECT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR/YEARS T HE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKHS. THEREFORE, IT IS TO BE HELD THAT WHETHER IT IS A SOLITARY ORDER OR COMMON ORDER , THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE TAX EFFECT LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKHS AND IN ALL SUCH CASES WHETHER IT IS A PART OF THE COMMON ORDER OR A SOLITARY ORDER. THE REVENU E WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO FILE AN APPEAL.' ( EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) WTA NOS.63 TO 65/BANG/2018 PAGE 8 OF 9 11. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HON'B!E KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, THE REVENUE CANNOT TAKE THE P LEA OF CONSIDERING CUMULATIVE TAX EFFECT ALSO. 12. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE CONCLU DE THAT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE AND ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 6. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINAT E BENCH IN THE CASE REFERRED ABOVE, WE ALSO HOLD THAT THE INSTRUCTION N O.2/2005 DATED 24/10/2005 ISSUED BY THE CBDT SHALL CONTINUE TO APP LY TO THE WEALTH-TAX APPEAL. SINCE THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THESE 3 A PPEALS IN EACH OF THE YEAR IS LESS THAN 2 LAKHS, THE REVENUE IS PRECLUDED FROM PURSUING THESE APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE APPEALS FIL ED BY THE REVENUE ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AR E DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST JANUARY, 2019 . SD/- SD/- ( N.V. VASUDEVAN) VICE PRESIDENT ( B.R BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, 21 ST JANUARY, 2019. / VMS / COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER A SST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE. WTA NOS.63 TO 65/BANG/2018 PAGE 9 OF 9 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.P.S .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE.. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER. ..