M/s Khyati Ceramics, Panch Mahal V. The ACIT Central circle 2, Baroda

ITSSA 25/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9081 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Period of limitation; Block assessment; Time period of passing order
• Section: 69C; 142(1); 132; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, VP AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALAN KAMONY, AM) IT (SS) A NO.25/AHD/2009 BLOCK PERIOD: 01-04-1996 TO 10-03-2003 M/S. KHAYATI CERAMICS, PLOT NO.179/180, GIDC, KALOL, DIST. PANCHMAHAL P. A. NO. AAEFK 5855 D VS THE A. C. I. T., CENT. CIR-2, BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI J. P. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAHUL KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 06-03-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10-05-2013 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD DATED 26-11-2008, IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-I V/105.B/CC- 2/07-08, PASSED U/S 250 READ WITH SECTION 158BD AND 158BC OF THE IT ACT, FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FROM 01-04-1996 TO 10- 03-2003. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO ELABORATE GROUNDS AN D THEY ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN UNDER FOR OUR CONSIDERATION:- 1. 158BD ASSESSMENT IS BAD FOR THE FOLLOWING AMONG ST OTHER REASONS (I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO FRAMED SECTION 158BC ORDE R HAS NOT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SUCH PROCEEDI NGS THE NECESSARY SATISFACTION FOR TAKING ACTION AGAINS T THE IT (SS) A NO.25/AHD/2009 (BP: 01-04-1996 TO 10-03-2 003) M/S. KHYATI CERAMICS VS ACIT, CC-2, BARODA 2 ASSESSEE AND IF RECORDED DURING 158BC PROCEEDINGS SUCH SATISFACTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE ASSESSE ES ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE SECTION 158BD ACTION AGAI NST IT. (II) SECTION 158BD NOTICE IS OUT OF TIME IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT IS ISSUED AFTER A PERIOD OF NINE MONTHS FRO M COMPLETION OF SECTION 158BC ASSESSMENT. (III) SECTION 143(2) NOTICE IS NOT ISSUED IN STATUTORY TI ME. (IV) SURVEY DOES NOT ENTITLE BLOCK ASSESSMENT EITHER UN DER SECTION 158BC OR 158BD 2. THE C. I. T.(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE FOLLOWING AD DITIONS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME- (I) RS.4,40,666/- UNDER SECTION 69C AS ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE IN ASST. YEAR 2000-2001. (II) RS.5,09,410/- ALSO UNDER SECTION 69C AS ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE IN ASST. YEAR 2001-02. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH U/S 13 2 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 11-03-2003 IN THE CASE OF TIKKI TAR GROUP WHO WAS DEALING IN TAR. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SOME DO CUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO SEIZED WHICH P RIMA FACIE DISCLOSED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EARNING UNDISCLOSED INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 158BC OF THE ACT WAS ISSUE D TO THE ASSESSEE ON 25-08-2003 PURSUANT TO WHICH THE ASSESS EE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON 09-09-2004 DISCLO SING ITS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS RS.24,300/-. HOWEVER, AT THIS POINT OF TIME, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LEARNED AO THAT NOTICE U/S 158 B C OF THE ACT WAS WRONGLY INITIATED ON THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER PROCEEDINGS U/S 15 8BD OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTIC E WAS ISSUED ON IT (SS) A NO.25/AHD/2009 (BP: 01-04-1996 TO 10-03-2 003) M/S. KHYATI CERAMICS VS ACIT, CC-2, BARODA 3 01-12-2005. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 10-12-2005 SUBMITTED THAT THE BLOCK RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 158BC OF THE ACT MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 158 BD OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED ON 12-09-2007. THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE VALI DITY OF THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 158 BD OF THE ACT BEFORE THE LEARNED AO WITH THE PRAYER THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AFTER LAPSE O F TWO AND HALF YEARS OF THE DATE OF SEARCH AND AFTER LAPSE OF NINE MONTH S FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT NOTICE U/S 158 BD OF THE ACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC OF TH E ACT AS WELL AS WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY TH E ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF THE CASE OF KHANDUBHAI VISANJI DESA I REPORTED IN 236 ITR 73 (GUJ.) 3.1 THE LEARNED AO REJECTED THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- WITH REGARD TO DELAY IN STARTING THE PROCEEDINGS I.E. 2 YEARS AFTER THE SEARCH AND ABOUT 9 MONTHS TIME AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC ETC., THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE IS NOT LEGALLY MAINTAINABLE. SECTION 158BC PROVIDES FOR IS SUANCE OF NOTICE FOR THE CASES COVERED UNDER THE SEARCH. SECTION 158 BD PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE A. O. IS SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED I NCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON IN RESPECT TO WHO M SEARCH WAS MADE U/S. 132 THEN IN THAT CASE, THE A. O. SHALL PR OCEED U/S 158BC AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THE PROVISIONS OF THI S CHAPTER XIV-B SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. SECTION 158BE PROVIDES FOR TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT BOTH U/S 158BC A ND 158BC. ACCORDING TO SECTION 158BE, THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIO N SPECIFIED FOR COMPLETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS THAT OF 1 YEAR FR OM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE NOTICE U/S 158BD WAS ISSUED. THU S, ON OVERALL IT (SS) A NO.25/AHD/2009 (BP: 01-04-1996 TO 10-03-2 003) M/S. KHYATI CERAMICS VS ACIT, CC-2, BARODA 4 PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER XIV- B OF THE ACT, THERE IS NOTHING WHICH PUTS ANY LIMITATION PERIOD OF INIT IATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD. THE ONLY LIMITATION PROVIDED IN THE CHAPTER IS REGARDING COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AND NOTHING IS PROVIDED FOR STARTING OR INITIATING THE PROCEEDI NGS. ACCORDINGLY, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND THEREFORE HELD AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE ASS ESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KHANDUBHAI VISANI DESAI (236 ITR 73) IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION. THIS DECISION AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN THEREIN IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN AS MUCH AS I THIS DECISION THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBL E HIGH COURT WAS NOT RELATED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD / 15 8 BE OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE WAS RELATED TO HANDLING OVER THE SEIZED M ATERIAL TO THE CONCERNED A. O. WHEN IT WAS HELD THAT SUCH SEIZED M ATERIAL SHOULD BE HANDED OVER IN A REASONABLE TIME. THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SUCH RATIO IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. BESIDES, THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ARE BEI NG COMPLETED WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD PROVIDED BY SECTION 15 8BE. EVEN OTHERWISE, INCOME-TAX ACT WHICH IS A REVENUE CODE , CONTAINS TWO TYPES OF PROVISIONS I.E. SUBSTANTIVE LAW AND PROCED URAL LAW. THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW IS THAT WHICH DEALS THE RIGHTS AND THE SAME IS FUNDAMENTAL. ON THE OTHER HAND, PROCEDURAL LAW IS C ONCERNED WITH LEGAL PROCESS INVOLVING ACTIONS AND REMEDIES WHICH IS THAT BRANCH OF LAW WHICH GOVERNS THE PROCESS OF LITIGATION. THE HO NBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISHWANATHPRASAD BHAGWATI PRASAD VS CIT (202 ITR 469) HAS HELD THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL LAW IS MERELY AN IRREGULARITY CAPAB LE OF BEING RECTIFIED. THUS, IN THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSE E THERE WAS AN IRREGULARITY OF THE PROCEDURAL LAW AND SUCH IRREGUL ARITIES, IN THE EYE OF LAW, CAN BE RECTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, I DO NOT FIN D ANY FORCE ON THE FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD WERE BAD IN LAW. THEREFORE, T HE SAME IS REJECTED AND THE INCOME IS COMPUTED AS DISCUSSED BE LOW FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. 3.2 WHEN THE MATTER WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED A O WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- HOWEVER, THE PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT OF SEARCH CA SES AND THE TIME-LIMIT, FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT OF SUC H OTHER PERSONS, IT (SS) A NO.25/AHD/2009 (BP: 01-04-1996 TO 10-03-2 003) M/S. KHYATI CERAMICS VS ACIT, CC-2, BARODA 5 WAS TO COMMENCE ONLY FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN W HICH THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO SUCH OTHER PERSONS UNDER SECTION 158BD READ WITH SECTION 158BC (1) UNLIKE THE TIME-LIMIT FIXED FOR T HE RAIDED PERSONS ON THE BASIS OF THE EXECUTION OF THE LAST AUTHORIZA TION. MOREOVER, AS REGARDS THE RAIDED PARTY, THE LIMITATION WAS FIXED FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE LAST AUTHORIZATION SEARCH OR REQ UISITION WAS EXECUTED WHILE IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER PERSONS R EFERRED TO IN SECTION 158BD, THE LIMITATION PROVIDED WAS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE NOTICE UNDER CHAPTER XIVB WAS SE RVED ON WHICH OTHER PERSON. HENCE, A NOTICE UNDER CHAPTER XIVB MA Y BE SERVED ON SUCH OTHER PERSON AT ANY TIME SINCE THERE WAS NO TI ME PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT FOR ISSUANCE OF SUCH NOTICE TO THE OTHER P ERSONS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 158BD, IT WAS NOT FOR LD. COUNSEL TO REA D ANY TIME-LIMIT FOR ISSUANCE OF SUCH NOTICE. 3.3 THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US REITERATED HIS SUBMISS IONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). HE FURTHER POINTED OUT T HAT NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 01-12-2005 I.E. ALMO ST NINE MONTHS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, NOTIC E U/S 158BD OF THE ACT ON THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. HE , THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT IS NO T VALID AND THE SAME MAY BE QUASHED. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HA ND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED AO AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS O F THE CASE THAT THE NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BEYOND NINE MONTHS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC OF THE ACT IN TH E CASE OF THE PARTY SEARCHED. THIS FACT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE RE VENUE. THE LEARNED AR HAD RELIED IN THE CASE OF BHARAT BHUSHAN JAIN VS ACIT [2009] 183 TAXMAN 151 (DEL. (MAG.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THERE IS A IT (SS) A NO.25/AHD/2009 (BP: 01-04-1996 TO 10-03-2 003) M/S. KHYATI CERAMICS VS ACIT, CC-2, BARODA 6 DELAY BEYOND NINETEEN MONTHS FOR ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U /S 158BC OF THE ACT ON THE SEARCHED PARTY, IT COULD NOT BE CONS IDERED FOR THE NOTICE U/S 158 BD OF THE ACT TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED WI THIN A REASONABLE TIME. FURTHER, WE ARE ALSO REMINDED OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE CIT VS BIMBIS CREAMS & BAKES [2012] 75 DTR (KER.) 362: [2012] 254 CTR (KER) 633 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UND ER: 6. RELYING ON THE DECISION IN PANCHAJANYAM MANAGEME NT AGENCIES CASE SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BOUND TO I NITIATE SIMULTANEOUS PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD AGAINS T THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE I.E. ALONG WITH SECTION 158BC A SSESSMENTS INITIATED AGAINST THE GROUP OF CONCERNS SEARCHED BY THE DEPARTMENT. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UND ER SECTION 158BD AND ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO FIRST COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT THAT GETS TIME BARED FIRST AND THEN PROC EED TO MAKE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BD LATER. BESIDES FINDI NG FORCE IN THIS CONTENTION, WE ALSO FEEL THAT IT IS ONLY ON COMPLET ION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC ON THE SEARCHED ASSESSEE THE AS SESSING OFFICER CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE REMAINING INCOME I R ESPECT OF WHICH DETAILS WERE COLLECTED DURING SEARCH COULD BE ASSES SED IN THE HANDS OF OTHER ASSESSEES. IN FACT, BIFURCATION OF INCOME RELATING TO SEARCHED ASSESSEES AND INCOME RELATING TO OTHERS WILL BE CLE AR ONLY AFTER DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE SEARCHED ASSESSEES. S O MUCH SO, IN OUR VIEW, A PRUDENT OFFICER SHOULD FIRST COMPLETE A SSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC ON SEARCHED ASSESSEES AND THEREAFTER BASED ON MATERIALS AVAILABLE, PROCEED FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER S ECTION 158BD AGAINST OTHER ASSESSEES ABOUT WHOM DETAILS WERE OBT AINED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION I N THE ACT REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD WITHIN A TIME FRAME, WE DO NOT THINK THE COURT CAN PRESCRIBE ANY TIME LIMIT. AT THE MAXIMUM WE CAN DECLARE AN ASSESSMENT ARBITRARY, IF ASSESSMENT IS NOT INITIATED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE BECAUSE ASSESSMENT WAS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 158B D WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC AGAINST SEARCHED ASSESSEES WHICH WAS MADE WITHIN TIME. SO M UCH SO, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BD WAS IN ITIATED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AND THE SAME WAS COMPLETED WITHIN THE STATUTORY IT (SS) A NO.25/AHD/2009 (BP: 01-04-1996 TO 10-03-2 003) M/S. KHYATI CERAMICS VS ACIT, CC-2, BARODA 7 PERIOD OF 2 YEARS AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 158 BE(2) (B) OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, ALLOW THE APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE AS WELL BY REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTIO N 158BD IS WELL WITHIN TIME. IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND RESTORE THE APPEALS BACK TO THE FILES OF THE TRIBUNAL WITH DIRECTIONAL TO THE TRIBUNAL TO HEAR A ND DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS ALONG WITH THE APPEALS OF THE GROUP OF CONC ERNS REMANDED BY US VIDE JUDGMENT ABOVE REFERRED. 5. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WHICH ARE IDENT ICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, WHEREIN ISSUAN CE OF NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT IS MADE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF NINE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC OF THE A CT IN THE CASE OF THE PARTY SEARCHED, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE BEFORE US IS BARR ED BY LIMITATION AND, THEREFORE, INVALID. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT FRA MED U/S 158 BD OF THE ACT IS BEYOND THE JURISDICTION AND, HENCE, WE H EREBY QUASH THE SAME. 6. SINCE, WE HAVE DECIDED THE JURISDICTION OF ASSES SMENT U/S 158BD OF THE ACT AGAINST THE REVENUE; WE HAVE RESTR AINED OURSELVES FROM ADJUDICATING THE OTHER ISSUES ON MERITS SINCE THEY HAVE BECOME IN FRUCTUOUS, MOREOVER BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE RESTRA INED FROM ARGUING THOSE ISSUES ON MERITS. IT (SS) A NO.25/AHD/2009 (BP: 01-04-1996 TO 10-03-2 003) M/S. KHYATI CERAMICS VS ACIT, CC-2, BARODA 8 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10-05-2013 SD/- SD/- (G. C. GUPTA) VICE PRESIDENT (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LAKS LAKS LAKS LAKSHMIKANT HMIKANT HMIKANT HMIKANTA AA A DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/- -- - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: DIRECT ON COMPUTER 12-03-1 3 /07-05-2013 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 13-03-2013/07-05-2013 OTHER MEMB ER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. 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 DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: