M/s. Whitelene Chemicals, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(1), Surat

ITA 74/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: 7420514 RSA 2007
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P TALATI
• Assessee Lawyers: MITISH S MODI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 6; 69C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.74 / AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) M/S. WHITELINE CHEMICALS, OPP. VEENA VIHAR BUILDING, ROAD NO.6, PLOT 2/13, 2 ND FLOOR, UDHNA UDYOG NAGAR, SURAT VS. ITO, WARD 2(1), SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFW2495D (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI MITISH S. MODI, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S. P. TALATI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 27.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.11.2011 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) II, SURAT DATED 6.11.2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A)-II, S URAT IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE I. T. O. WARD-2(L), SURAT WITHOUT APPRECIATING IN T HE RIGHT PERSPECTIVES THE EVIDENCES/MATERIALS/EXPLANATIONS F URNISHED IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY HON'BLE ITAT, AHMEDA BAD IN ITA NO. 3509/AHD/2004 VIDE ORDER DTD. 30-08-2005 AND TH EREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 18836137- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGE D UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69C OF THE ACT MERELY RELYING UPON THE STATEMENT OF THE AGED PARTNER, BE DELETED. 2. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS)-II, SURAT OUG HT TO HAVE FOUND THAT THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 1883613/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 6 9-C OF THE ACT I.T.A.NO.74 /AHD/2007 2 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE VERY FACT THAT ALL THE TRA NSACTIONS HAD BEEN RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, DULY CON FIRMED BY M/S SWAMI CHEMICALS IN HER AFFIDAVIT PRODUCED BEFORE TH E AO AND THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING ADDITION DISREGARDING THE AFFIDAVIT OF DEPONENT AND OTHER AUTHENTIC AND BELIE VABLE EVIDENCES IS ARBITRARY, BAD IN LAW AND NOT JUSTIFIED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO BRING OUT A SINGLE EVIDENCE OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE OF GOODS FROM M/S SWAMI CHEM ICALS, BUT EXCLUSIVELY RELYING UPON THE STATEMENTS OF THE OLD PARTNER OF THE APPELLANT AND HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1883613/-M ADE ONLY ON REPEATED EXPLANATIONS OF THE AO IS ARBITRARY, BAD I N LAW AND HENCE, DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. IN VIEW ALL THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS OF APP EAL WHICH MAY BE PRODUCED DURING THE HEARING OF APPEAL, THE APPEAL M AY BE ALLOWED FULLY AND JUSTICE RENDERED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE TILL THE STAGE OF RE STORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 3 TO 3.2 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BEL OW: 3. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143 (3), VIDE ORDER DTD. 15/3/2004, BY THE ITO, WARD 2(1), SURAT. THE ASSESSEE WENT UP IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), CONTESTING VAR IOUS ADDITIONS INCLUDING THE SUM OF RS. 18,83,613. MY ID. PREDECES SOR, VIDE HIS ORDER DTD. 11/10/2004, IN APPEAL NO. C AS/11/24/04- 05 PARTLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. HOWEVER, HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS. 18,83,613 U/S. 69C OF .THE I. T. ACT . THIS AMOUNT REPRESENTED A PART OF THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSE E TO M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS, TOTALLING RS. 19,41,869 ON WHICH SALES T AX @ 3% WAS DEDUCTED RESULTING IN THE NET PAYMENT OF RS. 18,83, 613. THE AO, RELYING UPON THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS T O THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS WERE ONLY PA PER TRANSACTIONS, TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE SOURCE OF THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS WAS NOT SATISF ACTORILY EXPLAINED. ACCORDING TO HIM, SINCE THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE SOURCE WAS KNOWN EXCLUSIVELY TO THE ASSESSEE, THE O NUS WAS ENTIRELY ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FROM WHICH SUCH SUM WAS PAID TO M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS. SINCE, THE AS SESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE SUCH ONUS, THE AO TREATED THE SUM OF R S. 18,83,613 AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 69C OF THE I. T. ACT. HE ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/ S. 271(L)(C) OF THE I.T.A.NO.74 /AHD/2007 3 I. T. ACT. IN APPEAL, MY ID. PREDECESSOR TOOK THE V IEW THAT THE ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE UN/S. 69C ONLY IF UNE XPLAINED EXPENDITURE TOWARDS PURCHASES COULD HAVE BEEN ESTAB LISHED. BUT, WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS THEMSELVES WERE NOT GENUINE AND WERE ONLY PAPER TRANSACTIONS, THERE COULD NOT BE ANY QUESTION OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES LEADING TO UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. HE TH EREFORE, DELETED THE ADDITION. THE MATTER WENT UP IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON. IT AT. 3.1 BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE WENT IN APPEAL B EFORE THE IT AT AGAINST VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. THE DEL ETION OF THE SUM OF RS. 18,83,613 BY MY LD. PREDECESSOR WAS CONT ESTED BEFORE THE HON. ITAT BY THE REVENUE. THE HON. ITAT DEALT W ITH THIS ISSUE IN PARA 8 OF ITS ORDER (SUPRA). THIS PARA IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER. '8. NOW WE TAKE UP OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF REVEN UE. THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,83,613/- U/S. 69C MADE BY A.O. H AS BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A). AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES , WE FIND THAT THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF 3% BEING SALES TAX W ORKED OUT ON RS.18,83,613/- TRANSACTION WITH SWAMI CHEMIC AL WHICH WERE -MERELY PAPER TRANSACTION. THE A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH EXPENSES ON SALES TAX WHEREAS IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT TRANSACTIONS WITH SWAMI CHEMICALS WAS ONLY IN PAPER AND THERE WAS NO REAL SALE OR TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE WI TH PARTY ONLY BILL WAS PREPARED AND SENT TO THE PARTY AND TH ERE WAS NO PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. THE PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM THESE TRANSACTIONS AFTER DEDUCTING AN AMOUNT OF 3% AS SALES TAX PAYMENT BALANCE AMOUNT RETURNED TO M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS. FROM THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A)HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE ISSUE. IF TH E ASSESSEE RETAINED 3% ON ACCOUNT OF SALES TAX, AND SALES TAX HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN NO ADDITION IS WARRA NTED AND IF ANY PART OF 3% REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE, TO TH AT EXTENT CERTAINLY INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SALES TAX DEP OSITED IS REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED. THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXAMINED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND APPROPRI ATE TO SEND BACK THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) TO DECI DE THE MATTER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, KEEPING IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH SIDES.' I.T.A.NO.74 /AHD/2007 4 3.2 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DTD. 21/6/2006, THE AO WAS REQUESTED TO VERI FY THE AMOUNT OF SALES TAX DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS. 3. LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE MATTER AGAIN AS PER T HE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY HIM AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE ON THIS BASIS THAT BOGUS INVOICES HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE ON M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS AND M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS HAD MADE THE PAY MENT OF RS.19,41,869/-, OUT OF WHICH, RS.18,83,613/- WAS RE TURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER DEDUCTING SALES TAX @ 3% AND THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE SOURCE REGARDING THIS CASH PAYMENT OF R S.18,83,613/- TO M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS. HE, THEREFORE, UPHELD THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 69C OF THE ACT. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHE R APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT IN THE FIR ST ROUND, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT (A) FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER EXAMINING THIS ASPECT AS TO WHETHER SALES TAX WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OR NOT IN RESPECT OF SALES TO M/S. SWAMI C HEMICALS AND IF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF SUCH SALES TAX, NO ADD ITION IS JUSTIFIED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IS AVAILABLE ON P AGE 11-30 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN I.T.A.NO. 3509/AHD/2004 DATED 30.08.2005 AN D OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA 8 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY MADE PAYMENT OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SALES TAX AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAI NED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE FIRST ROUND. FIRST, WE RE PRODUCE THE RELEVANT PARA I.T.A.NO.74 /AHD/2007 5 I.E. PARA 8 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE FIRST ROUND AS PER WHICH, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A), THE SAME IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK: NOW WE TAKE UP OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF REVENUE. THE ADDITION OF RS.18,83,613/- U/S. 69'C MADE, BY A.O. HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A). AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF 3% BEING SALE TAX WORKED OUT ON RS.18,8 3,613/- TRANSACTION WITH SWAMI CHEMICAL WHICH WE MERELY PAP ER TRANSACTION. THE A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSE SSEE FAILED ESTABLISH EXPENSES AND SALES TAX , WHEREAS IT WAS E XPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT TRANSACTIONS WITH SWAMI CHEMICALS WAS ONLY IN PAPER AND THERE WAS NO RE SALE OR TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE WITH PARTY ONLY BILL WAS PREPARED AND SENT TO THE PARTY AND THERE W AS NO PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF GOODS . THE PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM THESE TRANSACTIONS AFTER DEDUCTING AN AMOUNT 3% AS SALES TAX PAYMENT B ALANCE AMOUNT RETURNED TO M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS. FROM THE NATURE O F TRANSACTION, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATE D THE ISSUE. IF THE ASSESSEE 3% ON ACCOUNT OF SALES TAX, AND SALES TAX HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED AND IF AN Y PART OF 3% REMAINED WITH THE THAT EXTENT CERTAINLY INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE SALES TAX REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED. THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND APPROPRIATE TO SEN D BACK THIS TO FILE OF CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH SIDES. 7. WE FIND THAT IN THIS PARA OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT IS STATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND THAT IT WAS EXPLAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE THAT TRANSACTION WITH M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS WAS ONLY ON P APER AND THERE WAS NO REAL SALE TRANSACTION WITH THE PARTY AND THE BIL LS WERE PREPARED AND SENT TO THE PARTY AND THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT IT WAS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST ROUND THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED FROM THESE TR ANSACTIONS AND AFTER DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT @ 3% BEING SALES TAX, BALANCE AMOUNT WAS RETURNED TO M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS. THEREAFTER, THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECI SION IN ACCORDANCE WITH I.T.A.NO.74 /AHD/2007 6 LAW AND ALTHOUGH AN OBSERVATION HAS BEEN MADE IN TH AT PARA OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER THAT IF SALES TAX HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED AND IF ANY PART OF 3% SALES T AX REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE, THEN TO THAT EXTENT, IT IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR A FRESH DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND NO RESTRICTION WAS PUT ON LD. CIT(A) T O DECIDE ONLY THE SALES TAX ASPECT AND NOT THIS ASPECT REGARDING SOUR CE OF REPAYMENT MADE TO M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS AND HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. A.R. BEFORE US IS WIT HOUT ANY BASIS THAT AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROU ND, LD. CIT(A) CANNOT GO BEYOND THE EXAMINATION OF PAYMENT OF SALES TAX. I N THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THE FIRSTS ROUND ALSO, IT IS ADMITTED POSITION THAT OUT OF PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS, AN AMOUNT OF RS.18,83,61 3/- WAS RETURNED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS AND HE NCE, ASSESSEE HAS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH PAYMENT TO M/S. SWAMI CH EMICALS. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R THAT IN HIS REPORT DATED 10.07.2006, THE A.O. HAS REPRODUCED THE FACTS OF THE CASE FROM THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IT IS STATED BY THE A .O. IN THAT REPORT THAT THE ADDITION REPRESENTS UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF NON PAYMENT O F SALES TAX ON THIS TRANSACTION WITH M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS. THE ASSESSE E ALSO FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S . SWAMI CHEMICALS AND ALSO THE COPY OF DIARY IMPOUNDED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY IN WHICH THE TRANSACTION IN CONNECTION WITH M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS ARE HIGHLIGHTED. THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING TWO PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS IN THE MONTH OF MAY 2000 RS.30,000/- & RS .97,175/- ON PAGE 10 OF THE DIARY ON RECEIPT SIDE BOTH THESE AMOUNTS ARE ENTERED AND AGAIN ON PAGE 11 OF THE DIARY ON PAYMENT SIDE, THESE TWO AMOUNTS ARE ENTERED. IN THE MONTH OF JUNE 2000, THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM I.T.A.NO.74 /AHD/2007 7 M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS, IS OF RS.71,744/-, RS.1,02,25 6/-, RS.75,500/-, RS.27,000/-, RS.1 LACS, RS.27,000/-, RS.67,500/-, R S.80,871/-, RS.99,491/- AND RS.80,871/-. ALL THESE RECEIPTS ARE NOTED ON P AGE 18 & 19 OF THE DIARY ON RECEIPT SIDE. THE SAME AMOUNTS ARE ALSO N OTED ON PAYMENT SIDE ON PAGES 18, 19 & 20 OF THE DIARY. THERE ARE OTHER SIMILAR TRANSITIONS NOTED ON BOTH THE SIDES OF THE DIARY AND THESE NOTH INGS IN THE DIARY CLEARLY SHOW AND ESTABLISH THAT THE TRANSACTION WITH M/S. S WAMI CHEMICALS WAS NOT REAL TRANSACTION BUT IT WAS ONLY PAPER TRANSACT ION AND THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM THIS PARTY BY WAY OF CHEQUE AND THE S AME WERE RETURNED BACK IN THE FORM OF CASH AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESS EE IS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH RETURNED TO M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS . A CLEAR FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE PAYMENTS TO M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS. BEFORE US ALSO, NO SUCH EXPLANATION COULD BE FURNISHED REG ARDING THE SOURCE OF THESE PAYMENTS TO M/S. SWAMI CHEMICALS AND HENCE, W E DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON T HIS ISSUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 9. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE M ENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (T. K. SHARMA) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; SP ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 16.11.2011 SD./- SD./- (A. K. GARODIA) (D. K. TYAGI) AM JM I.T.A.NO.74 /AHD/2007 8 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 9/11 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 11/11.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 14/11 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 16/11 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.16/11 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 16/11/2011 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. ..