SITA DEVI JAIN, Jaipur V. ITO, TONK

ITA 664/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5285 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEENA JEPH JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Revised return
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO.664/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 . SMT. SITA DEVI JAIN, M/S. HEERA LAL SANMATI KUMAR, CHANOTTI BAZAR, NEWAI, TONK. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, TONK. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. ACBPJ 3196 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY S : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. NEENA JEPH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 26.04.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/05/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI T.R. MEENA, A.M. THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS EMANATING FROM THE ORDER DATED 14.05.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A)-III, JAIPUR FOR THE A .Y. 2009-10. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 14,2 8.950/- U/S 271(1)(C) ARBITRARILY, THUS THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 1.1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE APPELL ANT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DUE TAX WAS PAID THEREON AND NEITHER ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WERE FURNISHED NOR ANY INCOME WAS CONCEALED THUS THE PENALTY SO LEVIED AT RS. 14,28,950/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2 ITA NO. 664/JP/2013 SMT. SITA DEVI JAIN VS. ITO 1.2. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ACCEP TING THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE WHO ACTED IN BONAFIDE MANNE R AND BY SUFFICIENT REASONS EXPLAIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADIN G TO MISTAKE, THUS THE RESULTANT CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY AT RS. 1 4,28,950/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 AT RS. 2,42,212/-. ALL THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE REVOLVING AROUND CONFIRMING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AT RS. 14,28,950/-. THERE WAS A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE IT ACT ON 10.07.2008. THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS HAVING INCOME FROM WHOLESALE TRADE OF VARIOUS GRADES AND Q UALITY OF CLOTH. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, ALL STATEMENTS ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEING AN OLD LADY WERE GIVEN BY SHRI SANMATI KUMAR JAIN, SON OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS MANAGING ALL HER BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, WHICH WERE DULY ENDORS ED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE AT THE END OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY HER SON SPECIA LLY ENDORSED THE STATEMENT AND SURRENDER MADE BY HER. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY , VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTED BY THE SURVEY TEAM. THE SURVEY TEAM HAD CARRI ED COMPLETE PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF CASH AND STOCK AVAILABLE IN THE BUS INESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. ON PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF CASH, THE SAME WAS FOUND A T RS. 15,96,715/- WHEREAS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS ON DATE OF SURVEY CASH IN HAND WAS OF RS. 96,715/- WHICH WAS EXCESS BY RS. 15,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE EXCESS CASH FOUND IN HER BUSINESS PREMISES WHICH HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE RECORDING OF HER STATEMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGULAR RETURN. DURING THE COURSE OF S URVEY, A DETAILED INVENTORY OF STOCK WAS PREPARED OF ABOUT 38 PAGES, VALUATION OF WHICH WAS TAKEN AS PER SALE PRICE OF THE ITEM AS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE VA LUATION OF STOCK ON PHYSICAL 3 ITA NO. 664/JP/2013 SMT. SITA DEVI JAIN VS. ITO VERIFICATION WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 44,42,906/- AFTE R ALLOWING THE GP @ 5.51% WHICH HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PREVIOUS YEAR AND ACTUAL VALUATION AT COST OF THE STOCK WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 41,98,102/-. IN AD DITION TO ABOVE, AS PER THE BILLS OF PURCHASE NOT ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, TH E STOCK WAS OF RS. 1,43,003/- WAS LYING AT THE TRANSPORT COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE VALUATION OF THE TOTAL STOCK FOUND FROM PHYSICAL VERIFICATION WAS AT RS. 43,41,1 05/-. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE AFTER INCORPORATING EACH AND EVERY PURCHASE/SALE VOUCHERS AND ALLOWING GP RATE OF 5.51% HAD WORKED OUT THE SALE AT RS. 45,32,596/- AND PURC HASES AT RS. 49,42,082/- UPTO THE DATE OF SURVEY AND ACCORDINGLY THE STOCK AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS FOUND TO BE AT RS. 39,61,557/- AGAINST EXCESS STOCK FOUND AT RS. 3,79,548/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND AT HER BUSINESS PREMISES. ACCORDINGLY SHE DISCLOSED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,75,750/- IN THE C APITAL ACCOUNT FURNISHED WITH THE AUDIT REPORT FOR WHICH NO JUSTIFICATION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS AMOUNT ALSO HAS BEEN SURRENDERED AND DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FO R TAXATION. 2.1. THE LD. AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE SU RVEY, A NOTE BOOK WAS FOUND INVENTORISED AS ANNEXURE B-30 HAVING 6 WRITTEN PAGE S, PHOTO COPY OF WHICH WAS TAKEN AND PLACED ON RECORD. AS PER THE COPY OF SAI D PAGES, NAMES OF VARIOUS PERSONS WERE WRITTEN ON THESE PAPERS HAVING CERTAIN ENTRIES OF AMOUNT AGAINST EACH NAME TOTALING TO RS. 25,10,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO JUSTIFY THESE ENTRIES AS THE SAME WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN HER STATEMENT CATEGORICA LLY ADMITTED THAT THESE ENTRIES ARE RELATED TO VARIOUS DEBTORS OF HER BUSINESS ACTI VITIES FOR CREDIT SALES MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ENTERE D IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SHE VOLUNTARILY ADMITTED THAT THESE ARE UN ACCOUNTED INCOME FOR THE 4 ITA NO. 664/JP/2013 SMT. SITA DEVI JAIN VS. ITO FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN DISCLOSE D IN THE SUBSEQUENT RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE TAX ON THESE DISCLOSURES BUT THIS AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THE COMPUTATION O F INCOME. SHE DIRECTLY CREDITED THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT TO THAT EXTENT WHICH IS NOT AS PER THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE. THUS THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS. 43,8 9,548/- HAS BEEN ADMITTED AND SURRENDERED AND ALSO DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR RETUR N OF INCOME. THEREFORE, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS 43,79,548/- UNDER THE HEAD UNDIS CLOSED INCOME. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) HAD BEEN ISSUED SEPARATELY FOR FU RNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 2.2. BEFORE IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ), THE AO GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WA S AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 23.04.2012 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED B Y THE AO ON PAGES 1 TO 3 OF HIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FURNISHED THE REPLY ON 2 5.06.2012 AND SUBMITTED THAT HER APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A)-III, JAIPUR IS PENDIN G. THEREFORE, SHE WANTED ADJOURNMENT IN HER CASE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASS ESSEES REPLY, THE AO REITERATED THE FACTS WHICH WERE MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER AS ALREADY DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAS. THE AO HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID ANY TAX VOLUNTARILY. SHE HAD ADMITTED VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES DURING THE COURS E OF SURVEY AND AGREED TO PAY THE TAX. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT ESCAPE FROM THE PENALT Y ONLY BECAUSE SHE PAID DUE TAX ON CONCEALED INCOME AFTER DETECTION THEREOF BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO MAINTAIN COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON WHI CH TRUE AND CORRECT PROFIT CANNOT BE DEDUCED. THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT INCOME HA D BEEN ESTIMATED BY THE AO WAS ALSO NOT FOUND CONVINCING TO HIM. THE ASSESSEE WILLFULLY, DELIBERATELY CONCEALED THE INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, EXPLANATION-4 5 ITA NO. 664/JP/2013 SMT. SITA DEVI JAIN VS. ITO TO SECTION 271 IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE. ACCORDINGLY HE IMPOSED 100% PENALTY ON TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON CONCEALED INCOME OF RS. 45,3 0,396/- AT RS. 14,28,950/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON HER BEFORE LD. CIT (A), WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- HOWEVER, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT IN RES PECT OF PENALTY IMPOSED ON THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME DETECTED DURING T HE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IN THE FORM OF EXCESS CASH, EXCESS STOC K AND UNACCOUNTED SALES. THOUGH THE APPELLANT AGREED FOR THE ADDITION AND PAID TAX4ES THEREON, THE SAME CAN NOT BE TREATED AS A VOLUNTARY ACT. APPELLANT HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO ADMIT THE SAME AND PAY TAXES THERE ON. BUT FOR THE SURVEY, APPELLANT WOULD NOT HAVE DISCLOSED THE AFOR ESAID UNACCOUNTED INCOME. IN THE 5RETURN OF INCOME FILED AFTER SURVEY , THE APPELLANT DID NOT SHOW THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED DURING SUR VEY. THIS CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT PROVES HER GUILT IN FURNISHING INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF HER INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE PENALTY IMPOSE D IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 43,89,548/- IS CONFIRMED. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 4.1. THE LD. A/R SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY HAD BEE N LEVIED MERELY BY BORROWING THE OBSERVATION AND CONCLUSION MADE IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND NO SEPARATE OBSERVATIONS HAD BEEN MADE IN THE PENALTY ORDER AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED HER INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME CAN BE ALLEGED ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF IN COME MEANING THEREBY THAT IN ORDER TO LEVY PENALTY OF U/S 271(1)(C), IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED THAT CERTAIN INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ALSO CAN BE ALL EGED AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, IN THE PRE SENT CASE, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MAINLY ON THE BASIS OF SURRENDER MADE DURING T HE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE 6 ITA NO. 664/JP/2013 SMT. SITA DEVI JAIN VS. ITO STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 133A NOTHING HAS B EEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AND NO EFFORTS HAS BEEN MADE TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT ADMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY REPRESENTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON 10.7.2008, CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS/AMOUNTS WERE NOT FO UND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH COULD SUBSEQUENTLY HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THEREAFTER, INCOME COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH CO MPLETED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. A FTER FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME, LD. AO HAD NOT FOUND ANY CONCEALED INCOME O N THE BASIS OF SURVEY OR SCRUTINY MADE BY THE AO. IN THE RETURN, THE ASSESS EE HAS SHOWN CORRECT INCOME AND FURNISHED CORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS FOUN D THAT IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE SURRENDERED INCOME HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN BUT IT DI RECTLY CREDITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WHICH IS A CLERICAL MISTAKE, BUT IT DOES NO T ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME OR FURNISHED THE INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE RETU RN AND INCOME ASSESSED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT (A). HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE CASE OF SMT. DURGA DEVI SOMANI VS. ITO, KISHANGRH IN ITA NO. 672/JP/2011 WH EREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THOUGH SURRENDERED IN ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE CAN T AKE FRESH PLEAS IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WHICH BY SETTLED LAW ARE DISTINCT AND S EPARATE, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO. AS THE LD. AO GAVE THE FINDINGS IN THE ORDER OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE BASIS OF QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDING S ARE SEPARATE FOR WHICH HE RELIED ON THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF EILLY LILLY & COMPANY, 312 ITR 225 (SC). HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE FOLLOWI NG DECISIONS AND REQUESTED TO DELETE THE PENALTY CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT (A) :- 7 ITA NO. 664/JP/2013 SMT. SITA DEVI JAIN VS. ITO JHAVAR PROPERTIES P. LTD. VS. ACIT 317 ITR 278. NARANGS INTERNATIONAL HOTELS P LTD. VS. DCIT CIRCLE -1(2), MUMBAI. 137 ITD 53. NATIONAL TEXTILES VS. CIT 249 ITR 125 (GUJ.) GOSWAMI SMT. CHANDRALATA 125 ITR 700 (RAJ.) G. RAMKUMAR VS. DY. CIT 47 DTR 417. CIT VS. VASANT K. HANDIGUND 327 ITR 233. 4.2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. D/R VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 4.3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON 10.7.2008, MORE THAN 3 MONTHS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 RELEVANT T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, EXCESS CASH, EXCESS ST OCK AND LIST OF OUTSTANDING DEBTORS WERE FOUND WHICH HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE, BUT PREVIOUS YEAR HAS NOT ENDED SO FAR. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 WITHIN TIME AT RS. 2,42,212/- AND PAID THE TAX ON ALL THE DISCLOSU RES MADE, BUT IN COMPUTATION THIS DISCLOSURE HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN & IT IS DIRECTLY CRED ITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CO-OPERATED DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AO HAD IMPOSED PENA LTY ON THE BASIS OF FINDING GIVEN FOR THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS IN ASSESSMENT. HO WEVER, QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE. NO INVESTIGAT ION OR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAD BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAS CO NCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF 8 ITA NO. 664/JP/2013 SMT. SITA DEVI JAIN VS. ITO INCOME AND CONCEALED THE INCOME. THE AO ONLY IMPOS ED THE PENALTY ON THE BASIS OF RETURNED INCOME. IN THE CASE OF SURESH MITTAL, HON BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED IF THE REVISED RETURN ACCEPT ED BY THE AO AS SUCH. A NUMBER OF DECISIONS ALSO ON THIS ISSUE HAS CONFIRMED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT MADE ON RETURNED INCOME, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED UNDER SE CTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT PENAL TY CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT (A) DESERVES TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT (A). 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/05/201 6. SD/- SD/- DQY HKKJR VH-VKJ-EHUK (KUL BHARAT) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 30 /05/2016 DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. SITA DEVI JAIN, TONK. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT-THE ITO WARD, TONK. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 664/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR 9 ITA NO. 664/JP/2013 SMT. SITA DEVI JAIN VS. ITO SL. NO. DATE INITIAL 1 DATE OF DICTATION 2 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER 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 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 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 THE ORDER 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER