Shri Mahendra Ambalal Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT..Cent.Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 614/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9386 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 20-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T P KRISHNA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

, , , , C, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, C BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(SS)A NO.614/AHD/2010 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2000-2001] MAHENDRA AMBALAL PATEL 199/A, PATEL VAS KOCHRAB, PALDI, AHMEDABAD. PAN : ABBPP 5057 A /VS. DCIT, CENT.CIR.2(2) AHMEDABAD. ( (( (-. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( (/0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) 1& 2 3 )/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DIVETIA + 2 3 )/ REVENUE BY : SHRI T.P. KRISHNAKUMAR,CIT-DR 5 2 &(*/ DATE OF HEARING : 13 TH AUGUST, 2013 678 2 &(*/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 5.9.2013 )9 / O R D E R PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD DATED 27.11.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001. 2. THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LATE BY 883 DAYS. THE ITAT VIDE ITS DATED 11.11.2011 IN IT(SS) NO.614/AHD /2010 DECLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY, AND HENCE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ADMITTED BEING DELAYED. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE, THEREAFTER, APPROACHE D HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DECLINING TO CONDONE THE DELAY. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 27. 11.2012 IN TAX IT(SS)A NO.614/AHD/2010 -2- APPEAL NO.1584 OF 2011 INCLINED THE TRIBUNAL TO REC ONSIDER THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF THE DELAY AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE OFFICE BOY OF THE ASSESSEES OFFICE. ACCORDINGLY, AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE DELAY CONDON ATION APPLICATION IS TAKEN UP FOR ADJUDICATION. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON T HE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN STATEMENT OF FACTS IN THE APPEAL MEMO AS PER PAR A 2.4 AS UNDER: 2.4 THE APPELLANT BEGS TO EXPLAIN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ALREADY DECIDED TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BUT MEANWHILE HE RECEIV ED FURTHER APPELLATE ORDERS FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS O N 14.2.2008. NOW, THE OFFICE BOY SHRI SANJIV OF M/S.U.J.BHATT & CO., TAX ADVOCATES, FORGOT TO PUT U P THE RECORD FOR PREPARING THE APPEAL FOR THIS YEAR AND THE APPEAL FOR A.Y.2002-03 WAS PREPARED AND FIL ED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME I.E. ON 18.3.2008. RECENTLY, WHEN THE APPELLANT RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF HEARING FIXED ON 19.7.2010, THE ENTIRE CASE RECORDS WAS SENT TO THE OFFICE OF SHRI S.N.DIVETIA, ADVOCAT E WHO WAS TO REPRESENT IN THE HEARING OF THE SAID APPEALS, WHEN IT WAS FOUND THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR A.Y.2000-01 HAD REMAINED AS IT IS IN THE CASE RECORDS AND NO APPEAL WAS FILED. HENCE, THERE IS A DELAY FOR FILING THIS APPEAL FOR A SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHICH MAY PLEASE BE CONDONED. THE APPELLANT WAS VER Y MUCH AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) AND HAD ALREADY MADE UP HIS MIND TO GO FOR FURTHER APPE AL. THUS, THE DELAY WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF NEGLIGENCE, INACTION OR WILLFUL ON HIS PART. THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI SANJIV WILL BE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHR I SANJIV MANUBHAI RAMI STAFF MEMBER OF M/S.UPENDRA J. BHATT & CO., TAX ADV OCATES. THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT ARE AS UNDER: I AM SERVING SINCE LAST 16 YEARS WITH UPENDRA J BH ATT PROPRIETOR BHATT & CO, TAX ADVOCATE, PRESENT ADDRESS : 205, 'S HAGUN COMPLEX', SWASTIK SOCIETY, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD-3 80009. MY NATURE OF WORK IS TO PREPARE I T RETURNS, TO KEEP I T RETURNS AND OTHER PAPERS INTO RESPECTIVE FILES OF THE CLIENTS, TO GET SIGNATURE OF THE CLIENT IF AN APPEAL IS TO BE FILED IN HIS CASE, TO FILE THE PAPERS IN IT(SS)A NO.614/AHD/2010 -3- INCOME TAX OFFICE AND IF ANY NOTICE / ORDER IS RECE IVED FROM I T OFFICE, TO KEEP IT IN THE RESPECTIVE FILES OF THE C LIENTS. THUS I AM LOOKING AFTER I T WORK IN HIS OFFICE. OVER AND ABOV E ME, THERE IS ONE PEON IN HIS OFFICE. EXCEPT ME THERE IS NO OTHER EMP LOYEE IN HIS OFFICE AND BECAUSE OF THIS, I AM LOADED WITH LOTS OF WORK. THIS OFFICE IS HANDLING ABOUT 1600 CLIENTS WHICH INCLUDES CASE OF MAHENDRA AMBALAL PATEL RESIDING AT 199/A, PATEL VAS, KOCHRAB , PALDI AND I MY SELF IS HANDLING ALL HIS ABOVE WORK. 2. IN THE CASE OF ABOVE NAMED MAHENDRA AMBALAL PATE L, FOR A.Y. 19992000 ONWARDS HIS ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PASSED AND IN HIS CASE HEAVY ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DERS. APPEALS WERE FILED AGAINST SUCH ORDERS TO CIT(A). APPEAL OR DER FOR 2000-01 WAS RECEIVED WHICH I WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE IT ALONGW ITH HIS CASE FILE TO UPENDRA J BHATT SO THAT IF FURTHER APPEAL IS REQ UIRED TO BE FILED ON HIS INSTRUCTIONS, THE SAME CAN BE FILED BUT DUE TO MY OTHER WORK ALONGWITH TIME BARRING ASSESSMENT ORDERS, NOTICES E TC. THIS ORDER WAS LEFT OUT AND COULD NOT BE PRESENTED ON TIME BUT WHEN THE APPEALS FOR OTHER YEARS CAME FOR HEARING IN JULY 2010, I WA S ASKED ABOUT THE POSITION OF APPEAL BY THE OFFICE OF MR.SAMIR DIVETI A, ADVOCATE CARRYING ON PROFESSION AT VIKRAM CHAMBERS, ASHRAM R OAD, AHMEDABAD. I EXAMINED THE CASE RECORD OF MAHENDRA A MBALAL PATEL AND ON SEARCH I FOUND THE APPEAL ORDER FROM MY DRAW ER OF THE TABLE ALONGWITH OTHER PAPERS. IMMEDIATELY I DREW ATTENTIO N OF UPENDRA J. BHATT IN THIS REGARD. THUS, AGAINST THE ORDER OF C IT(A), FURTHER APPEAL TO ITAT COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME. 3. FURTHER, I HAVE TO STATE THAT MY NAME IS SANJIV BUT IN OFFICE AND MY RELATIVES CALL ME SANJU. 4. THIS AFFIDAVIT IS EXECUTED AS THE SAME IS REQUIR ED IN THE TAX APPEAL OF MAHENDRA A. PATEL 4. THE LEANED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE OFFICE BOY OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ASSESSEE, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL HAPPENED F OR THE REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE, AND HENCE IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E MAY BE ADJUDICATED ON MERIT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REL IED ON VARIOUS CASES LAWS TO SUPPORT ITS CASE THAT THE COURT MUST TAKE UTMOST CONSIDERATION TO CONDONE IT(SS)A NO.614/AHD/2010 -4- THE DELAY TO ENSURE THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED DUE TO TECHNICAL OR SOME LAPSES ON THE PART OF THE LITIGAN T. 5. THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE CONDONATION OF THE DELAY. HE SUBMITTED THAT LOOKING TO THE LENGTH OF DELAY THAT IS OF 883 DAYS, IN FACT THE DELAY IS UNC ONDONABLE AND THE APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED. HE SUBMITTED THAT SUCH INO RDINATE DELAY OF MORE THAN TWO AND HALF YEARS INDICATES THAT EITHER THE A SSESSEE IS NOT VIGILANT OR NEGLIGENT IN PURSUING ITS CASE, AND THE ASSESSEE HA S TAKEN A VERY CAUSAL APPROACH IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL, AND THEREFORE, SUC H TYPE OF LITIGANT DOES NOT DESERVE JUSTICE TO BE DONE, AND HENCE, CONDONATION APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING DILATORY, LIABLE TO BE REJECTED SUMM ARILY. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COUR T DATED 27.11.2012 IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. WE FIND THAT THE INORDINATE D ELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE PRESENT CASE IS SAID TO HAVE HAPPENED DUE TO LAXITY ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE STAFF OF OFFICE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS WHO IS ENGAGED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE EN TIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT IN ORDER TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, A LIBERAL PRESUMPTION IS TO BE MADE TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DELAY IS BEYOND ITS CONTROL, AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY, MORE SO, WHEN THE AFFIDAV IT FILED BY THE STAFF OF THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY A ND ADMIT THE APPEAL AND ADJUDICATE THE SAME ON MERIT. IT(SS)A.NO.614/AHD/2010 6. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: IT(SS)A NO.614/AHD/2010 -5- 1. THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 DATED 27.11.2007 FOR A .Y.2000-01 BY CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.33,01,000/- MADE BY AO IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8. BRIEF FACTS AS CAN BE NOTED FROM THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER: THE A.O. HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.33,01,000/- U/S. 68 FOR THE STATED LOAN RECEIVED FROM ONE BHOLABHAI KAKIYA, IN THE MON TH OF MAY AND JUNE, 1999 BY WAY OF SIX CHEQUES. THE A.O. HAD SOUG HT CONFIRMATION/EVIDENCE VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15/12/2006 AND IN RESPONSE, WAS PROVIDED A CONFIRMATION OF THE SAI D SHRI BHOLABHAI, WITHOUT HOWEVER HIS PAN, ETC. THE A.O. HAD SENT A N OTICE U/S.133(6) TO SHRI BHOLABHAI, WHICH WAS HOWEVER NOT RESPONDED. THE A.O. THEREFORE FELT THAT THE CASH CREDIT REMAINS UNVERIF IED AND SO MADE THE ADDITION. BEFORE ME, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. DID NOT PROVIDE PROPER OPPORTUNITY THEN. A XEROX COPY OF THE PAN CA RD AND OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI BHOLABHAI A/C NO. 1333 IN PR OGRESSIVE MERCANTILE CO-OP. BANK WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE ME BY W AY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IT WAS INFORMED THAT SHRI BHOL ABHAI WAS IMPRISONED OWING TO THE CASES FILED AGAINST HIM BY THE BANK FOR DEFAULTING. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE. FURTHER THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S.133(6) SENT BY THE AO. REFER ENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISION REPORTED IN 90 ITR 396 AND 18 TTJ 324. A COPY OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WAS PROVIDED TO THE A.O. FOR HIS COMMENTS/REPORT, WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON 27/1 1/2007. THE A.O. HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE CHEQUES ISSUED BY SHRI BHOLABH AI IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT WERE PRECEDED BY CASH DEPOSITS OF EQU IVALENT AMOUNT, ON THE SAME/ADJACENT DATES. THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS OP ENED IN 1997 AND TILL 8/9/2006 THE ONLY TRANSACTIONS MADE IN THI S ACCOUNT ARE THE IT(SS)A NO.614/AHD/2010 -6- DEPOSIT OF CASH FOLLOWED BY ISSUE OF CHEQUES IN FAV OUR OF THE APPELLANT. IN FACT, AFTER 9/9/1999 THERE IS NO DEPO SIT OF CASH OR ISSUE OF CHEQUE AND THE THEN CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.710/- N OW, ON 8/9/2006 WAS RS.910/- DUE TO PETTY INTEREST ADDED. THE A.O. POINTED OUT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE AND IT APPEARED T O BE A CASE OF 'CHEQUE BADLI' ONLY. ON BEING INFORMED, THE APPELLA NT, HOWEVER OBJECTED TO THIS INTERPRETATION AND REITERATED THAT THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE WAS NOT TO BE PROVED BY HIM, AS PER THE JUDI CIAL DECISIONS. THE DECISION IN CASE OF NEMICHAND KOTHARI VS. CIT, 264 ITR 254 WAS REFERRED TO IN THIS REGARD. 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL APART FROM REITERATING THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.33,01,00 0/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION IS CHEQUE BADLI ONLY. THIS PRESUMPTION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR EVIDENC E ON RECORD. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL RELEVANT DETAILS RELATING TO LOAN RECEIVED FROM SHRI BHOLABHAI, SUCH AS PAN AND CONFI RMATION LETTER ETC. WHICH ITSELF INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER. SINCE THE ASSESSE E HAVING COMPLIED WITH THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE ITS CASE, THE B URDEN TO PROVE THAT THE CASH CREDIT REMAINED UNEXPLAINED SHIFTS TO THE AO, AND BOTH HAVING FAILED TO SO, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND HENCE REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 10. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS ON RECORD CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION IS CHEQUE BADLI TRANSACTION. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID SHRI BHOLABHAI KAKIYA, HAS NOT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) ISSUED BY THE AO, AND T HE AO HAS NOTED THAT NEITHER ANY REPLY NOR ANY EVIDENCE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT IT(SS)A NO.614/AHD/2010 -7- THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION IS GENUINE, AND HENCE REMA INED UNVERIFIABLE. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUCH AS PAN CARD AND THE BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI BHOLABHAI WITH PROGRESS MERCANTILE CO-OP. BANK WERE NOT BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF FINALIZATION OF THE ASSESSMENT. NEVER THELESS, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT FOUND THE SAME TO BE SATISFACTORY TO EXPLAIN GE NUINENESS, IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CASH TRANSACTION UNDERTAKE N BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES M AY BE UPHELD AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BE DISMISSED. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) SUCH AS PAN, BANK STATEMENT S ETC. WERE NOT BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE AO NOTED IN HIS ORDER THAT A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) WAS ISSUED TO SHRI BHOL ABHAI KAKIA FOR VERIFICATION OF IDENTITY, CONFIRMATION, COPY OF CON TRACT ACCOUNT AND OTHER RELEVANT DETAILS. HOWEVER, NO REPLY HAS BEEN RECEI VED TILL THE DATE OF PASSING THE ORDER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF BHOLABHAI WAS SOLELY OPENED TO SERVE THE IN TEREST OF THE ASSESSEE BETWEEN THE PERIOD 8.11.1998 TO 25.6.1999, AFTER WH ICH THERE WAS NO DEPOSIT OR ISSUE OF CHEQUES EXCEPT FOR THE PETTY IN TEREST BETWEEN RS.6/- TO RS.22/-, AND THAT THIS IS EVIDENTLY CASE OF CHEQUE BADLI WHEREBY THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN GIVEN COLOUR OF EXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT T HE AO HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH FURTHER EVIDENCES IN THIS RE GARD, WE FIND PROPER TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNIS H ALL THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED LOAN OF RS.33, 01,000/- TAKEN FROM SHRI BHOLABHAI KAKIYA. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE ARE SET ASIDE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ALL THE DETAILS, EX PLANATIONS AND EVIDENCES THEREOF PROMPTLY, AND BASED ON WHICH, THE AO SHALL PASS NECESSARY SPEAKING ORDER ON THE ISSUE, AFTER PROVIDING REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY OF IT(SS)A NO.614/AHD/2010 -8- HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO COOPERATE IN THE MATTER IN FINALISING THE ASSESSMENT. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD IT(SS)A NO.614/AHD/2010 -9- 1. DATE OF DICTATION : 26-08-2013 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER. : 26-08-2013 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 TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT. : 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER : 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. : 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK. : 5.9.2013 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. : 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. : 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER :