The DCIT, Circle-7, Ahmedabad V. Shri Dilip Ramanlal Parikh, Ahmedabad

ITA 914/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8337 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 50C; 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.914/AHD/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 AHMEDABAD / VS. SHRI DILIP RAMANLAL PARIKH 10, PRERNA KUTIR BUNGLOWS NEXT TO SARTHI HOTEL VASTRAPUR # ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAVPP 9105 G ( #& / APPELLANT ) .. ( '#& / RESPONDENT ) #&( / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR.DR '#& )( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR WITH SHRI PARIN SHAH, ARS *+ ), / DATE OF HEARING 11/10/2017 -./0 ), / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16 / 10 /2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 13/01/2014 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER S.143(3) DAT ED 08/12/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10. ITA NO. 914/AHD /2014 DCIT VS. SHRI DILIP R.PARIKH ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE RE AD AS UNDER:- I) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.64,89,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAIN AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND IN ALLOWING EXEMPTIO N U/S.54EC TO THE TUNE OF RS.50,00,000/- IN CONSEQUENT TO ALLOWIN G THE CAPITAL GAINS AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. II) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE LAND ON QUESTION WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE MERELY BECAUSE THE LETTER OF ALLOTMENT WAS GIVEN ON 14.09. 2002 AND IGNORING OTHER REGISTERED DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING T HAT NO POSSESSION OR RIGHTS EMBEDDED THERE TO WERE WITH TH E ASSESSEE. THE PAYMENT BY ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT MADE TO THE OR IGINAL LAND OWNER. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL FILE D ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2009-10. THE RETURN WAS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTI NY ASSESSMENT. IN THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY CONCERNED, THE AO FOUND THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) OF RS.64,89,000/- HAS BEEN WRONGLY CLAI MED ON SALE OF CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND. IT IS THE CASE OF AO THA T THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF THE AFORESAID LAND REQUIRES TO BE ASSESS ED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (STCG) IN VIEW OF THE PURCHASE-DEED EX ECUTED TOWARDS ACQUISITION OF SUCH LAND DATED 04/01/2007 AND A COR RESPONDING SALE-DEED EXECUTED ON 18/03/2008 TOWARDS SALE THEREOF. IT IS THUS CASE OF THE AO THAT THE AFORESAID LAND WAS HELD FOR LESS THAN 36 M ONTHS IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID AGREEMENTS. WHILE HOLDING SO, THE AO NE GATIVED THE CLAIM OF ITA NO. 914/AHD /2014 DCIT VS. SHRI DILIP R.PARIKH ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AFORESAID PROPERTY WAS IN ITS POSSESSION SINCE THE YEAR 2002 CORROBORATED BY ALLOTMENT LETTER. THE A O OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT DATED 04/01/2007 THE POSSESS ION WAS HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE WITH EFFECT FROM DATE OF PURCH ASE AGREEMENT AND NOT EARLIER AS CLAIMED. THE AO FURTHER ALLEGED THAT AS SESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TOWARDS PAYMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF ASS ET IN 2002 OR PRIOR THERETO. IN CONCLUSION, THE AO EMBARKED UPON ADDIT ION OF RS.64,89,000/- TOWARDS STCG ACCRUED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DENIED THE BENEFIT OF LTCG CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE FIRST APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) REVERSED THE ACTION OF THE AO AS PER FOLLOWING OPERATIVE PAR AS. 5. I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ENUMERA TED BY A.O. AND AS SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT. I HAVE PERUSED THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON B Y A.O. AS WELL AS APPELLANT. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTS, SUBMISSION AND CONT ENTION OF BOTH A.O. AS WELL AS OF APPELLANT, GROUND WISE ADJUDICATION IS AS FOLLOWS: THE APPELLANT'S ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST TH E A.O'S TREATMENT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FOR SALE OF LAND AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 64,89,000/- AND DENIAL OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF RS. 50,00,000/-. THE A.O. AFTER ANALYZING SALE DEED OF IMPUGNED PROP ERTY EMPHASIZED THAT- (I) AS PER PURCHASE DEED, THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS PURCHASED IN 2006-07 (PARA 9 PAGE NO. 8) AND PERIOD OF HOLDING IS LESS THAN 36 M ONTHS. (II) APPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY AGREEMENT WITH SELLER IN THE FORM OF 'AGREEMENT TO SALE' AND REJECTED APPELLANT'S EXPLAN ATION THAT SALE DEED OF IMPUGNED LAND REFLECT THAT SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID (RS. 1,11,000) IN 1996 - 97 DULY ITA NO. 914/AHD /2014 DCIT VS. SHRI DILIP R.PARIKH ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - AFFIRMED THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION. THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY PASS BOOK ENTRY, BANK BOOK ENTRIES OF 1996-97 PAYMENT. (III) THE RATIO OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF ALAPATI VENKATARAMIAH (SUPRA) IS APPLICABLE I.E. 'IF THE DO CUMENT IS NOT REGISTERED AND CONDITIONS OF SECTION 53A OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY A CTS ARE SATISFIED, OWNERSHIP IN THE PROPERTY IS NOT TRANSFERRED.' (IV) BY REJECTING COPY OF POSSESSION LETTER EXEC UTED IN SEPT. 2002 AS PRODUCED BY APPELLANT BECAUSE IN PURCHASE DEED THE POSSESSION W AS MENTIONED TO BE GIVEN ON 04.01.07. (V) APPELLANT'S CLAIM U/S 54EC WAS SIMPLY DENIED WITHOUT GIVING ANY DETAIL AND REASONS. FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATION OF A.O., THE ONLY DISPUT E IS IN REFERENCE TO OWNERSHIP OF PURPORTED LAND, THE TRANSFER OF WHICH RESULTING INT O CAPITAL GAIN. THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF PURCHASE DEED 04.01 .07 WHERE AT PARA 9 IT IS MENTIONED THAT IN CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,11,000/- FOR WHICH DETAIL IS MENTIONED AT PARA 16, THE POSSESSION OF LAND IS HANDED OVER. THE DETAIL AT PA RA 16 REFLECT THAT RS. 11,000/- WAS PAID BY APPELLANT IN CASH WHILE RS. 1,00,000/- WAS PAID VIDE CHEQUE NO. 110302 DT. 14.10.96 OF THE AHMEDABAD MERCANTILE CO. OP. BANK. THE APPELLANT PRODUCED AN ALLOTMENT LETTER AND CONTENDED THAT THE PURCHASE DE ED EXECUTED ON 04.01.07 WAS IN THE FORM OF RATIFICATION OF TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF LAND AND AS PER STANDARD LANGUAGE SUCH DRAFTING AT PARA 9 IS NOT PROPER & CO RRECT BECAUSE, THE COMPLETE PAYMENT & CONSIDERATION FOR THE IMPUGNED LAND WAS A LREADY PAID BY APPELLANT IN 1996 AND PLOT OF LAND WAS ALREADY ALLOTTED IN 2002 BUT THE REGISTRATION OF TRANSACTION WAS EFFECTED IN JAN. 2007 FOR WANT OF SALE OF THE L AND. THE A.O. HAS NOT DOUBTED PURCHASE VALUE RATHER ADOP TED THE SAME VALUE AS COST OF ACQUISITION. THE A.O. THOUGH MENTIONED THAT .APPELL ANT FAILED TO PRODUCE BANK PASS BOOK OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO SUBSTANTIATE PAYMENT BY SUCH CHEQUE DT. 14.10.96, BUT, A.O. NOT ONLY ACCEPTED IT AS PURCHASE CONSIDERATION BUT ALSO NOT INITIATED ANY PROCEEDING AGAINST APPELLANT FOR UNEXPLAINED AMOUNT OF COST OF ACQUISITION BECAUSE A PROPERTY VALUED AT RS. 1,11,000/- IN JAN. 2007 CANN OT FETCH RS. 66,00,000/- IN 30.03.08. THERE ARE TWO IMPORTANT FACTS WHICH WERE OVERLOOKED BY A.O. AS FOLLOWS: A. THE SUB REGISTRAR WHILE REGISTERING THE PUR CHASE DEED DT. 04.01.2007 VALUED THE LAND AS PER VALUATION IN 1996 AND NOT AS PER VALUAT ION FOR 2007 FOR CHARGING OF STAMP ITA NO. 914/AHD /2014 DCIT VS. SHRI DILIP R.PARIKH ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 5 - DUTY. THIS OTHERWISE WILL INVITE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT FOR WHICH A.O. HAS NOT INITIATED ANY ACTION. B. THE SALE DEED OF THE SAID LAND DT. 04.04.08 WHICH IS THE BASIS OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 66,00,000/- AND CHARGING OF CA PITAL GAIN, AT PARA 5, 6, 7 & 8 HAS DETAILS OF VARIOUS EVENTS OF PURCHASE OF THIS PROPE RTY, PAYMENT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION AND OTHER EVENTS OF ALLOTMENT AND REG ISTRATION. THESE FINDINGS WERE NOT DOUBTED BY A.O. AND THEREFORE AFFIRM THE APPELLANT' S CONTENTION THAT THOUGH PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID IN 1996 FOR WHICH THIS PLOT OF LAND WAS ALLOTTED BY M/S N C CORPORATION THROUGH SHRI NARSINGH GANPATBHAI PATEL WHO THEREAFTER ISSUED POWER OF ATTORNEY TO HIS NEPHEW SHRI VARUNBHAI NAGINBHAI PAT EL WHO WAS CONFIRMING PARTY IN BOTH PURCHASE & SALE DEED. IT IS THEREFORE, MERELY BY A DRAFT LANGUAGE OF THE PURCHASE DEED AT PARA 9, IN MY VIEW ALL OTHER FACTS CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE FOR OWNERSHIP AND HOLDING OF LAND FOR MORE THAN 36 MONTHS. AS PER SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITI ON, REGISTRATION IS NOT A MUST BUT FOR FURTHER SALE OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, THE PUR CHASE DOCUMENT REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED WHICH APPELLANT HAS DONE. THE LEGAL PROP OSITION IN THIS REGARD IS ALSO GIVES SUCH RATIO AS FOLLOWS: (I) BOARD CIRCULAR NO. 471 DT. 15.10.86 AND NO . 672 DT. 10.12.93 RECOGNIZES THAT 'EVEN ALLOTMENT OF A FLAT OR HOUSE BY STATE HOUSING BOARDS OR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO PURCHASE AS ON THE DATE OF ALLO TMENT ITSELF. (II) THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. T. N. ARVINDA REDDY (1979) 120 ITR 46 HELD THAT THE PURCHASE IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 54 SHOU LD BE UNDERSTOOD IN A LIBERAL SENSE WITHOUT ANY UNDER RESTRICTION LIMITING THE MEANING TO 'LEXICAL LEGALISM.' IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH 'PLAIN SPOKEN PEOP LE' WOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD IT. (III) HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. PODAR CEMENT PVT. LTD. (1997) 226 ITR 625 AND IN THE CASE OF MYSORE MINERAL LTD. VS. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 HELD THAT REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENT IS NOT MANDATORY FOR RECOGNITION OF TRANSFER. (IV) HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT FULL BENCH IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. MORMASIJ MANCHARJI VAID (2001) 250 ITR 542 FOLLOWING HON'BLE GUJ. HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF ARUNDHATI BALKRISHNA (1982) 138 ITR 245 CONSIDERED SECTION 45 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, SECTION 54 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPE RTY ACT AND SECTION 47 OF THE REGISTRATION ACT AND HELD THAT THE TRANSFER OF CAPI TAL ASSET BECOME EFFECTIVE UNDER 45 ITA NO. 914/AHD /2014 DCIT VS. SHRI DILIP R.PARIKH ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 6 - OF THE IT. ACT FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE DOCUMENT WAS EXECUTED, IN CASE ITS REGISTRATION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ADMITTED BEFORE THE R EGISTRAR. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,11,000/- PAID IN RESPECT OF PLOT OF LAND ALLOTTED VIDE ALLOTMENT LETTER DT. 14. 09.2002 WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REGISTRAR IN PURCHASE DEED DT. 04.01.2007. IT IS THEREFORE, A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING T HAT APPELLANT'S HOLDING PERIOD OF IMPUGNED LAND IS BELOW 36 MONTHS. HE IS DIRECTED TO TREAT THE GAIN FROM TRANSFER OF THE IMPUGNED LAND AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS REFL ECTED BY APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN REFERENCE TO CLAIM OF APPELLANT OF RS. 5 0,00,000/- U/S 54EC, SINCE A.O. HAS SIMPLY DENIED THE CLAIM CONSIDERING THE INELIGIBILI TY OF SAID DEDUCTION FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, BUT NOW SINCE I HAVE HELD THE TRANSFE R OF IMPUGNED LAND IS RESULTING INTO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN THEREFORE APPELLANT IS ALLOW ED THE DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. THIS WILL RESULT INTO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 64,89,000/- AND RELIEF TO APPELLANT ACCORDINGLY. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD.DR FOR THE REVENUE REFERRED TO PARA-9 OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PURCHASE-DEED DATED 04/01/2007 A ND SUBMITTED THAT THE PHYSICAL POSSESSION WAS HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE DATE OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND NOT AT EARLIER DATE AS CLAIM ED. HE THEREAFTER ASSERTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PAYMEN T TOWARDS PURCHASE WAS MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ON 14/10/1996 REMAINED UNVOUCHED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE FACT OF MAKING SUCH PAYMENT BY BANKING CHANNEL TOWARDS SUCH ACQUISITION AS CLAIMED. THE L D.DR THUS SUBMITTED IN CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSET SHOULD BE DEEMED TO BE HELD FROM THE DATE OF PURCHASE-DEED AND NOT FROM A PRIOR DATE AND THEREFO RE THE CLAIM OF THE ITA NO. 914/AHD /2014 DCIT VS. SHRI DILIP R.PARIKH ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 7 - ASSESSEE TOWARDS LTCG ON SALE OF SUCH ASSET IS CONT RARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45 R.W.S.2(29B) OF THE ACT. THE LD.DR A CCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) MISDIRECTED ITSELF IN HOLDING THAT THE GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF LAND TO BE LONG TERM IN NATURE. HE ACCORDIN GLY PLEADED FOR REVERSAL OF THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A). 7. THE LD.SENIOR COUNSEL, ON THE HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND WAS MADE WAY BACK IN 1996 DETAILS OF WHICH FORM PART OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PAYMENT, THE POSSESSION WAS OB TAINED AND A FORMAL PURCHASE DEED WAS FINALLY EXECUTED IN 2007 TO GIVE A LEGAL EFFECT TO THE AFORESAID TRANSACTION. THE LD.COUNSEL THUS SUBMITT ED THAT FOR ALL INTENT AND PURPOSES, THE ASSET WAS HELD FOR MORE THAN 36 M ONTHS. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ANITA D.KANJANI VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.2291/MUM/2015 DATED 13 /02/2007 TO ATTEND THAT HOLDING PERIOD SHOULD BE COMPUTED FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT LETTER NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT FORMAL PURCHAS E-DEED WAS EXECUTED AT A LATER STAGE. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE SHORT CONTROVERSY IN HAND IS WHETHER THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS HELD AS ST CG OR LTCG FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE RECORD, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE ALLOTMENT TOWA RDS PURCHASE OF LAND ITA NO. 914/AHD /2014 DCIT VS. SHRI DILIP R.PARIKH ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 8 - WAS AVAILABLE WITH REFERENCE TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2002 -03. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE PAYMENT TOWARDS ACQUISITION OF LAND WAS MADE IN OCTOBER-1996 AS EVIDENCED FROM THE FORMAL PURCHASE- DEED DATED 04/01/2007. THE FORMAL PURCHASE-DEED HAS BEEN EXEC UTED WHICH MERELY RATIFIES EARLIER ACT OF ACQUISITION AND POSSESSION. THUS, WHEN ACCOUNTED FROM THE DATE OF POSSESSION VOUCHED BY PAYMENT OF C ONSIDERATION, WE FIND NO RATIONALE IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. TH E CIT(A), IN OUR VIEW, HAS COME TO A RIGHTFUL CONCLUSION WHILE HOLDING TH E ASSET SOLD TO BE LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE PROCESS OF REASONING ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A). AS A RESULT, WE F IND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 16 / 10 /2017 SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 16 / 10/2017 4..*,.*../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO. 914/AHD /2014 DCIT VS. SHRI DILIP R.PARIKH ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 9 - !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #& / THE APPELLANT 2. '#& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 567, 8, / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8, ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD 5. 9:;,*67 , 67 0 , 5 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<+ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '9,, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 11.10.17 (DICTATION-PAD 11- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 12.10.17 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.16.10.17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 16.10.17 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER