The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(4)., Ahmedabad V. M/s. Yash Developers, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 266/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1052 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRENDRA OJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: BIREN SHAH
• Keywords: Tax effect; Retraction
• Section: 201; 13

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD ( THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./IT(SS)A NO.266/AHD/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 ) DY.CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) AHMEDABAD / VS. M/S.YASH DEVELOPERS 4, DEV VIHAR BUNGALOWS-2 SHILAJ ROAD, THALTEJ AHMEDABAD-380 059 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFY 9676 Q ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIRENDRA OJHA, CIT-DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VARTIK CHOKSHI & BIREN SHAH, AR / DATE OF HEARING 06/10/2020 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16 /12/2020 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)1 1,AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 16/03/2017 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 25/02/2016 RELEVANT TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR (AY) 2014-15. IT(SS)A NO.266/AHD/2017 DCIT VS. M/S.YASH DEVELOPERS ASS T.YEAR 2014-15 - 2 - 2. AS PER GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALL ENGED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.2,87, 55,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED ON-MONEY. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE PRIMARILY CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL FLATS AND SALE THEREOF. DURING THE PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEARS 2012-13 & FY 2013-14, RELEVANT TO AYS 2013-14 & 2014-15, THE ASSESSEE-FIRM DEVELOPED A HO USING PROJECT UNDER THE NAME OF AQUA POLARIS SITUATED AT NANA CHILODA , AHMEDABAD. A SEARCH UNDER S.132 OF THE IT ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM ON 13/06/2013. CONSEQUENT UPON SEARC H, PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED INTER ALIA FOR AYS 2013-14 & 2014-15. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED, THE ASS ESSEE-FIRM FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF AFORESAID TWO ASSESSMENT YE ARS DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AS UNDER:- A.Y. 2013-14 RS. 73,51,283 A.Y. 2014-15 RS.1,59,61,820 3.1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT S REFERRING TO VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH WHICH REFLECTED UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS IN THE FORM OF ON-MONEY CHARGED ON SALE OF FLATS. SHRI BHARAT K. GADHIYA, MANAGI NG PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER S.132 (4) OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH CONFESSED UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS BY WA Y OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF FLATS. SHRI BHARAT GHADHIYA AL SO MADE A TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF RS.3.76 CRORES IN RESPECT OF AFORESAI D TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH IS BIFURCATED AS UNDER:- IT(SS)A NO.266/AHD/2017 DCIT VS. M/S.YASH DEVELOPERS ASS T.YEAR 2014-15 - 3 - A.Y. RS. ------- ----- 2013-14 1,04,80,000 2014-15 2,71,20,000 ---------------- TOTAL 3,76,00,000 ======== 3.2. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RELEVANT TO AY 2014-15, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITI ONS ON FOLLOWING TWO BROAD COUNTS:- FOR THE AY 2014-15 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MAD E A TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.2,87,55,600 WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSER VATIONS AT PAGE-23 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER: 16. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALES OF RS.12,01,64,2 50 ON WHICH IT HAS DISCLOSED NET PROFIT OF RS.1,59,45,115 VIZ.13.25%. THIS TURNOVER INCLUDES ON-MONEY OF RS.2,71,20,000. THUS, THE REA L ADMITTED INCOME COMES TO RS.35,93,400 (13.25% OF RS.2,71,20,000). THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RETRACTED INCOME OF RS.2,35,26,600 IS ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVE D ON MONEY OF RS.52.29 LACS, WHICH IS AGAIN, AS PER THE STATEMENT OF THE THREE PURCHASERS AND THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ASSESSEE. T HIS IS ALSO ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. HENCE, TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.2,87 ,55,600 IS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME.. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) FOUND MERIT IN THE VARIOUS PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE HIM AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, I.E. 2013-14 & 2014-15. IT(SS)A NO.266/AHD/2017 DCIT VS. M/S.YASH DEVELOPERS ASS T.YEAR 2014-15 - 4 - 5. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONCERNING AY 2014-15 GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IS REPRO DUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE:- 6. FACTS OF THE CASE, FINDINGS OF THE AO AND SUBMI SSION OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH, INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED AND ALSO STATEM ENTS OF SOME OF THE CUSTOMERS, WHO BOUGHT FLATS FROM THE SCHEME OF THE APPELLANT, WERE RECORDED. IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF THIS MATERIAL EVID ENCE, THE ASSESSEE MADE DISCLOSURE ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIPTS. TH E MAIN ISSUE IN THE APPEAL WAS THAT, ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT MEET HIS COMMITMENT AND DISCLOSED PART OF THE INCOME OFFERED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH. THUS, THE ASSESSEE RETRACTED HIS STA TEMENT MADE IN THE SEARCH. 6.1.THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT, IN BRIEF, WAS THAT HE DID NOT RETRACT THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SHOWED INCOME IN THE RETURNS FOR THE A Y 2013-14 AND 2014-15 AFTE R CLAIMING SET OFF OF THE LOSS RESULTED ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIM OF INTEREST A ND REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS. THE AMOUNT OF INCOME DISCLOSED WAS INCLUD ED IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE PROJECT AND NO NEW CLAIM OF EXPENDI TURE WAS MADE. IT WAS OBSERVED FROM THE FACT OF THE CASE THAT THE AO DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION ABOUT THE TOTAL TURNOVER INCLUDING THE ON -MONEY RECEIPTS NOR DID HE FIND OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE AUDITED AND THE RETURNS WERE FILED THEREAFTER. THE AO ALSO DID NOT DOUBT ABOUT THE CLAIM OF INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO THE PARTN ERS. REGARDING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE CUSTOMERS, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE DISCLOSURE ITSELF INCLUDED THE ELEMENT OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS FOR SALE OF FLATS IN THE PROJECT . THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO MAKE FURTHER ADDITION ON THE SA ME GROUND. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON NUMBER OF DECISION OF THE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EVEN AFTER DETECTION OF ON-MONEY RECEIPT OR UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPT, WHAT CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX IS THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH RECEIPTS AND NOT THE ENTIRE RECEIP TS THEMSELVES. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, ADMITTEDLY RECEIPT OF ON-MON EY WAS DETECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHICH WAS BASED ON THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL SEIZED AND ALSO ON THE EVIDENCE GATHERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE FORM OF THE STATEMENTS OF 3 CUSTOMERS. THE ASSESSEE MADE T HESE RECEIPTS AS PART OF HIS SALE PROCEEDS AND CLAIMED EXPENSES OF INTERE ST AND REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS. IT(SS)A NO.266/AHD/2017 DCIT VS. M/S.YASH DEVELOPERS ASS T.YEAR 2014-15 - 5 - 6.2. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE RATIO OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE RATIO OF THE DECISIONS ON T HE ISSUE IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE OF RETRACTION OF THE STATEMENT MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE ON-MONEY RECEIPT S WAS INCLUDED AS A PART OF SALE PROCEEDS IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AND THE P ROFIT WAS ARRIVED AT ACCORDINGLY. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT EV EN AFTER CLAIMING INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS, THE NET PROFIT SHOWN IN THE RETURNS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS EVIDENTLY MORE THAN THE NORMAL PROFIT SHOWN IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS. THERE FORE, AFTER HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE COURT, THE G ROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL IN RESPECT OF T HE RELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENTS, I.E. 2013-14 & 2014-15. HOWEVER, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF AY 2013-14 WAS DISMISSED OWING TO LAW TAX EFFECT CIRCULAR NO.17 OF 2019 DAT ED 08/08/2019. WE ARE THUS CONCERNED WITH REVENUES APPEAL FOR AY 201 4-15 ONLY. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE REVERSAL OF ADDITIONS MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BEFORE TRIBUN AL. 7. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LD.D R FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. IN FURTHERANCE, THE LD.DR REFERRED TO THE CATEGORICAL STATEMENT MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSE E COULD NOT HAVE DECLARED LESSER INCOME THAN WHAT IS STATED IN THE S TATEMENT RECORDED UNDER S.132(4) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING EVIDENCES TO WARDS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS. IT WAS THUS ASSERTED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE SHIFTED FROM ITS IT(SS)A NO.266/AHD/2017 DCIT VS. M/S.YASH DEVELOPERS ASS T.YEAR 2014-15 - 6 - STATED POSITION IN THE FACTS OF CASE. IT WAS NEXT POINTED OUT THAT CERTAIN PARTIES WERE ALSO CROSS-VERIFIED BY ASSESSING OFFIC ER WHO CONFIRMED PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY TO ASSESSEE. IT WAS THUS CONT ENDED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REVERSAL OF ACTION OF A SSESSING OFFICER TAKEN IN CONFORMITY WITH OWN ADMISSION OF ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. 8. PER CONTRA, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REI TERATED VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND ALSO REFERR ED TO THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE LD.AR CONTENDED THAT THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) CANNOT BE FAULTED IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS SUBMISSIO NS AND DOCUMENTS AS PLACED BY WAY OF PAPER-BOOK. DECISION OF HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DY.CIT VS. PANNA CORPORATION 8 2 CCH 266 (GUJ) WAS ALSO REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON FOR THE PROPOS ITION THAT ONLY INCOME EMBEDDED CAN BE SUBJECTED TO TAX AND GROSS RECEIPT OF UNACCOUNTED/ON- MONEY CANNOT BE TAXED PER SE . THE LD.AR ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED AND NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CAL LED FOR. 9. WE SHALL DEAL WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE REVENU E AND COUNTER CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AT APPROPRIATE PLACE WH ERE CONSIDERED EXPEDIENT. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AS WEL L AS MATERIAL/ DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON IN TERMS OF R ULE 18(6) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL), RULES, 1963. IT(SS)A NO.266/AHD/2017 DCIT VS. M/S.YASH DEVELOPERS ASS T.YEAR 2014-15 - 7 - 11. FROM THE FACTS EMANATING FROM THE RECORD, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF RS. 3.76 CRORES WERE MADE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IN TUNE WITH THE DEPOSITION MADE IN THE STATEMENT MADE ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WHETHER WH OLE AMOUNT OF ON- MONEY RECEIPT CAN BE SUBJECTED TO TAXATION OR ONLY THE INCOME EMBEDDED THEREIN CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE FACTS OF THE C ASE. WHILE ASSESSING THE INCOME, AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE- FIRM HAS WRONGLY CLAIMED AND SET OFF EXPENSES AGAINST THE AFORESAID DISCLOSURE MADE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED WHERE IT WAS CATEGORICALLY ADMI TTED THAT DISCLOSURE WAS OF NET INCOME. AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER, THE A SSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ADJUST EXPENSES AGAINST THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO MADE SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.52.29 LAKHS BASED ON STATEMENT OF THREE PURCHASERS AND INCLUDED THE SAM E FOR TAXATION OVER AND ABOVE CONFESSION. 12. IN COUNTER, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE STATEMENT OF MANAGING PARTNER HAS BEEN FULLY HONOURED AND AFORES AID ON-MONEY RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO RS.3.76 CRORES IN AGGREGATE W ERE BIFURCATED INTO TWO FINANCIAL YEARS AND CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE RESPECTIVE FINANCIAL YEARS APPROPRIATELY. SUCH DEC LARATIONS FORMED PART OF THE TURNOVER AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROFITS WERE REFL ECTED IN AUDITED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS. IT IS FURTHER CONTENTION ON BE HALF OF ASSESSEE THAT WHERE THE SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED AT THE BEGINNIN G OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14 IN JUNE 2013, RELEVANT TO AY 2014-15, THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD CANNOT BE FORECLO SED AT AN EARLIER POINT IT(SS)A NO.266/AHD/2017 DCIT VS. M/S.YASH DEVELOPERS ASS T.YEAR 2014-15 - 8 - OF TIME BY ANY MEASURE. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE B ONAFIDES OF EXPENSES CLAIMED HAVE NOT BE DOUBTED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY SOUGHT TO DISPLACE THE ACTION OF ASSESSEE AND SEEKS TO BRING GROSS RECEIPTS AS INCOME IN ABSO LUTE INCONGRUENCE WITH DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN PANNA COR PORATION. IT IS FURTHER CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS ALSO MADE ADDITIONS OF RS.52.29 LAKHS ON THE BASIS OF STATEME NT OF 3 PURCHASERS WHEREAS THIS SUM WAS NATURALLY INCLUDED IN THE DEC LARATION MADE. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE NP WOULD BE OBSCENELY HIGH AT 52% OF THE TURNOVER WHERE THE VIEW OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS ADO PTED AND HENCE THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS PROBABLY UNJUSTIFIED . 13. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DULY TAKEN NOTE OF AVERMENTS MADE IN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI BHARAT K. GADHIYA RECORDED UN DER S.132(4) OF THE ACT AND ALSO VARIOUS EVIDENCES FOUND IN SEARCH. O N CONSIDERATION OF THESE FACTS, THE CIT(A) FOUND THE ACTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO BE ARBITRARY AND UNCALLED FOR. WE NOTE THAT THE ADDIT IONS, IF ACCEPTED, WILL RESULT IN INCREASE IN STAGGERING NET PROFIT UPTO 5 2% WHICH IS OSTENSIBLY ABNORMAL AND OUT OF SYNC WITH LINE OF THE BUSINESS. THE CIT(A) HAS, IN OUR VIEW, RIGHTLY ANALYSED THE FACTS AND INTER ALIA OBSERVED THAT MAJOR COMPONENT OF EXPENDITURE IS IN THE FORM OF INTERE ST AND REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THE ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND LAW APPREC IATED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. WITHOUT REPEATING THE W HOLE GAMUT OF IT(SS)A NO.266/AHD/2017 DCIT VS. M/S.YASH DEVELOPERS ASS T.YEAR 2014-15 - 9 - CONTENTIONS RAISED, WE DO NOT SEE ANY PRIMA FACIE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A). 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 16/12/2020 SD/- SD/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 16/12/2020 ..,... / T.C. NAIR, SR. PS T.C. NAIR, SR. PS T.C. NAIR, SR. PS T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%&' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. &'( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)-11, AHMEDABAD 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , & / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. ! / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 15.12.2020 (DICTATION PAD 13 PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 16.12.2020/16.12.2020 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.17.12.20 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 17.12.20 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