DCIT,Central-1, Bhopal V. M/s Mohini Deepika Construction Company , Bhopal

ITSSA 67/Ind/2020

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the revenue and the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bhopal. The appeals arose from the assessments made under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following a search operation on the 'Regal Homes' group, which included documents related to the assessee, M/s Mohini Deepika Construction Company. The Assessing Officer made substantial additions to the assessee's income for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, which were later contested. The Tribunal's decision focused on the legality of these additions in the absence of incriminating material, referencing several judicial precedents that supported the assessee's position.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 130426 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2020
• Other Referred Cases: Kabul Chawla (2015) (Del HC), Meeta Gutgutia (2018) (SC), PCIT Vs. Gahoi Dal & Oil Mills (2021) 11 ITJ Online 314 (MP)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Loose papers; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Question of law; Deemed dividend; Time period of passing order
• Section: 68; 132; 143(3); 153A; 143(1); 153; 153C

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 12 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,इंदौर ायपीठ,इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIB.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.67/Ind/2020(Assessment Year: 2012-13) DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. M/s Mohini Deepika Construction Company, Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee ITA No. 77/Ind/2020 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s Mohini Deepika Construction Company, Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: AASFM 0719 N Assesseeby Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 10.11.2022 / 16.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement 31.01.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by a consolidated appeal-order dated 27.01.2020passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal[“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of a consolidated assessment-order dated 06.12.2016 passed by learned DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal[“Ld. AO”] u/s 153C read with section 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year[“AY”] 2012-13 and 2011-12, the revenue/assessee has filed these two appeals. M/s Mohini Deepika Construction Company, ITA No. 67 & 77/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2012-13 & 2011-12 Page 2 of 12 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case- records perused. 3. The registry has informed that the ITA No. 67/Ind/2020 is delayed by 26 days and ITA No. 77/Ind/2020 is delayed by 91 days, therefore time- barred. The Ld. representatives praythat the delay has occurred due to Covid-19 Pandemic. The Ld. representatives further place reliance on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 read with Misc. Applications, by which suo motu extension of the limitation-period for filing of appeals w.e.f. 15.03.2020 under all laws has been granted and hence there is no delay in fact. We accept these submissions and proceed for hearing. 4. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee is a firm incorporated on 24.04.2009. A search was conducted on one “Regal Homes” group on 12.08.2014 wherein a document marked as “LPS-3 / Page 40 to 42” pertaining to the assessee was seized. Based thereon, Ld. AO completed assessments u/s 153C read with section 143(3) for AY 2009-10 to 2014-15. Present-appealsbefore us are concernedwith AY 2012-13and AY 2011-12, wherein the Ld. AO made additions of Rs. 3,38,36,810/- and Rs. 5,76,260/- respectively. Against the action of Ld. AO, the assessee went in first-appeal, whereupon the Ld. CIT(A) granted full relief in AY 2012-13 and part-relief in AY 2011-12. Now, the revenue is assailing first-appellate order of AY 2012- 13 and the assessee is assailing first-appellate order of AY 2011-12. IT(SS)A No. 67/Ind/2020 – Revenue’s appeal for AY 2012-13: 5. The revenue has raised two grounds in this appeal as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,31,50,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained addition of capital.” 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,86,810/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits.” M/s Mohini Deepika Construction Company, ITA No. 67 & 77/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2012-13 & 2011-12 Page 3 of 12 6. Ground No. 1 relates to the addition of Rs. 3,31,50,000/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained partner’s capital. Apropos to this ground, the facts are such that during assessment-proceeding on examination of books of account, the Ld. AO found that the assessee had made upward revaluation of its land (held as stock-in-trade) by Rs. 3,31,50,000/- and credited to the Partners’ Capital A/cs in the profit-sharing ratio. When the Ld. AO called the assessee to explain the same, it was submitted that it was a mere accounting entry whereby a separate account titled “Revaluation in the value of Land” was debited and the “Partners’ Capital A/cs” were credited, but, however there was no change in the value of opening or closing stock for income-tax purposes. The assessee also submitted that the said upward revaluation was subsequently nullified by making reversal entriesi.e. by debiting the “Partners’ Capital A/cs” of the same partners in the same profit- sharing ratio and crediting the “Revaluation in the value of Land” A/c. The assessee also submitted the copies of capital accounts of partners for verification by Ld. AO. The assessee also submitted that there was no transfer of any kind of asset by firm to partners nor there was any effect in any of the parameters for income-tax purposes. In short, the assessee’s submission was that it was just a book-entry and that too was reversed subsequently; it does not ensue any kind of income or loss for income-tax purpose; hence there would be no tax implication. However, the Ld. AO invoked section 68 and made addition of Rs. 3,31,50,000/- vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. 7. Ground No. 2 relates to the addition of Rs. 6,86,810/- made by Ld. AO on account of unexplained partner’s capital contribution. Apropos to this ground, the facts are such that during assessment-proceeding on examination of books of account, the Ld. AO observed that the partner of assessee-firm had brought a capital contribution of Rs. 6,86,810/-, but the assesseedid not file any supporting detailand thus failed to give any explanation to prove the source of such capital contribution. Based on this, M/s Mohini Deepika Construction Company, ITA No. 67 & 77/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2012-13 & 2011-12 Page 4 of 12 Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 6,86,810/- vide Para No. 6 of the assessment-order. 8. During first-appeal, the assessee raised a legal objection qua both of the additions involved in Ground No. 1 and 2 as narrated above. The assessee pleaded that those additionshave been made in the proceeding of section 153C /153A without having any incriminating material seized during the course of search and, therefore, the additions were illegal. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed this pleading of assessee and delete the additions. The concluding paragraphs of Ld. CIT(A) are extracted below: “If an assessment framed u/s 153C in respect of a year which was not pending as on the date of search and which does not abate, the same can be disturbed only on the basis of incriminating material. That in absence of incriminating material, the completed/ unabated assessment can be reiterated and cannot be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment u/s 153A without any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search. In the AY 2010-11 2012-13 to 2014-15 the assessment is not pending before the AO submitted by the AR of the appellant. It is not the case that the assessment for the AY 2010-11, 2012-13 to 2014-15 was pending on the date of search. The AO has not referred any incriminating materials, if any found during the course of search, while framing the assessment. It appears that no addition with reference to loose papers was made in the case of the appellant. The appellant had filed ROI as per sec 139, which was available before the AO. The AO has made addition only on the basis of the return of income, financial statements, query & replies available on record. There is not a single sentence in the assessment order that any annexure prepared by the search team in the Panchanama has been referred in the assessment order. The AO in para 1.0 has stated that page no 40 to 42 of LPS- 3 which were found and seized from premises of Smt Sunita Maheshwari belongs to appellant and on the basis of these loose papers notice u/s 153C were issued to appellant. However, it is evidently clear that no addition has been made to the income of the appellant in either of the assessment year with reference to the said seized loose papers. Thus, it is clear that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search. The AO must have referred to the incriminating material while framing the assessment for un- abated assessment year in her order. Respectfully, following the judicial pronouncements cited above, I hold that additions made without any nexus to incriminating material found, if any, as a result of search operations, are not sustainable in the eyes of law in the search assessments u/s153C/153A for un-abated year on the date of search. The Hon’ble Delhi HC in Kabul Chawla (2015) (Del HC) has held that if two conditions of completed assessment and no incriminating material for making addition are fulfilled then no addition could have been made in that AY. On perusal of the order of the AO, I find that the additions have been made on the basis of the submissions made by the appellant during the course of assessment M/s Mohini Deepika Construction Company, ITA No. 67 & 77/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2012-13 & 2011-12 Page 5 of 12 proceedings u/s 153C of the Acct. It is also not disputed that the assessments stood completed prior to the date of the search in view of no notice issued u/s 143(2) for scrutiny of the case within the limitation period available in the Act. Thus, the appellant fulfills both the conditions for invoking the ratio of Kabul Chawla (2015) (Del HC) that no addition could have been made in case of completed/ unabated assessment in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of the search. In similar set of facts, Jignesh P Shah (2018) (Bom HC) also held that no addition of deemed dividend could be made in search assessment u/s 153A in absence any incriminating material. My decision is based upon the view expressed in Kabul Chawla (2015) (Del HC) to the effect that if on the date of search, the assessments already stood completed u/s 143(1)(a) or 143(3) and no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, then no additions can be made to the income already assessed, which stands confirmed by the apex Court in MeetaGutgutia (2018) (SC) wherein the SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed vide its order dt. 2-7-18, is as under: “Invocation of sec l53A to re-open concluded assessments of AY earlier to year of search was not justified in absence of incriminating material found during search qua each such earlier AY: SLP dismissed” I have carefully gone through section 153A of the IT Act, 1961. When the assessment was concluded either by order u/s 143(3) or otherwise by operation of law, cannot be reopened. The re-assessment or the assessment has to be made u/s 153A/153C only on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of search operation. In the absence of any incriminating material, I am of the considered opinion that there cannot be any assessment u/s 153C as made by the AO. I respectfully following the decisions of Kabul Chawla (2015) (Del HC), MeetaGutgutia (2017) (Del HC) and Jignesh P Shah (2018) (Bom HC) and the jurisdictional bench of ITAT, Indore in Ultimate Builders (2019) 202 TTJ 91 (Indore-Trib) dt.9-8-19, Omprakash Gupta IT(SS)A Nos. 277 to 281/Ind/2017 dt. 28-2-19, Sainath Colonizers ITA(SS) Nos. 289 to 291/Ind/2017 dt. 28-2-19, hold that no addition can be made in respect of concluded/ unabated assessments u/s 153A unless there is any incriminating material found during the course of search. I would like to make it clear that where the assessment is completed u/s 143(1) or 143(3) unless AO has a time to issue notice u/s 143(2), AO cannot make an addition u/s 153A, unless there is an incriminating material found during the course of the search. Hence, the additions made by the AO in all the AY 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 required to be quashed. Thus, I find merit in the legal ground raised by the assessee in the AY 2010- 11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. Therefore, appeal on this ground is Allowed.” 9. Before us, Ld. DR strongly defended the assessment-order. Per contra, Ld. AR placed a heavy reliance on the appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Referring to the material held on record including the orders of lower- authorities, the Ld. AR instantly pointed out that the AY 2012-13 involved in present-appeal is a non-abated assessment-yearand the addition has been M/s Mohini Deepika Construction Company, ITA No. 67 & 77/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2012-13 & 2011-12 Page 6 of 12 made without having any recourse to incriminating material. Ld. DR could not rebut this factual submission of assessee and hence we do not need to elaborate further on the same, suffice it to accept that the revenue- authorities have made the impugned addition without any incriminating material in possession. 10. Having found that the Ld. AO has made addition in an unabated assessment year without having incriminating material, we straightaway observe that the position is directly covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of PCIT Vs. Gahoi Dal & Oil Mills (2021) 11 ITJ Online 314 (MP), ITA No. 21, 31 & 32 of 2019, order dated 12.07.2019,wherein relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 2 ITJ Online 869 (Trib. – Delhi) : (2016) 380 ITR 573 : (2015) 281 CTR 45 : (2015) 234 Taxman 300, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has dismissed the revenue’s appeal by holding that no addition can be made u/s 153A in a non-abated assessment year in absence of incriminating material found during search. The relevant paras of the decision are reproduced below: “8. Dwelling on the scope of sub-section (1) of Section 153A of the Act, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 2 ITJ Online 869 (Trib. – Delhi) : (2016) 380 ITR 573 : (2015) 281 CTR 45 : (2015) 234 Taxman 300 observed: “37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in M/s Mohini Deepika Construction Company, ITA No. 67 & 77/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2012-13 & 2011-12 Page 7 of 12 respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. In so far as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 9. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed. 10. In the given facts of present case as no incriminating documents during course of search are found, the order in appeal cannot be said to have suffered the illegality as would give rise to the proposed substantial question of law. 11. Consequently, appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs.” 11. Ld. DR representing the revenue submitted that there had been a change in the scheme for assessment of search cases from time to time. He submitted that in the case of searches conducted upto 31.05.2003, scheme of “Block-assessment” prescribed under Chapter-XIV-B consisting of section 158B to 158BH was applicable, but in respect of searches conducted after 31.05.2003, a new scheme prescribed u/s 153A to 153D is applicable. Ld. DR would further explain that while in older scheme u/s 158B to 158BH, there was assessment only of “undisclosed income”, the newer scheme u/s 153A to 153D prescribes assessment of “total income including undisclosed M/s Mohini Deepika Construction Company, ITA No. 67 & 77/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2012-13 & 2011-12 Page 8 of 12 income”. He would further submit that due to this material change, the present scheme u/s 153A to 153D is a “full-fledged” type of assessment wherein the concept of “incriminating material” is not applicable because the AO has full power to assess the total income, which may or may not be based on incriminating material. According to him, in the present case of assessee where assessment had been made by Ld. AO u/s 153A and not u/s 158BC, the addition made, even without having incriminating material, must be viewedand held as legal. 12. We observe that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Gahoi Dal & Oil Mills (supra) has clearly held that in absence of incriminating material, addition cannot be made in an assessment of unabated year u/s 153A. Ld. DR is not able to demonstrate any decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court holding against the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. 13. At this stage, we would also like to mention that in their later decision in the case of Pr. CIT and ors. Vs. MeetaGutgutia, Prop. Ferns ‘N’ Patels and Ors. (2017) 395 ITR 526 (Delhi), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court reiterated with approval their observations in Kabul Chawala’s case (supra) that completed assessments could be interfered with by AO while making assessment u/s 153A only on basis of incriminating material unearthed during course of search. If in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating material was found, no addition or disallowance could be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers u/s 153A and earlier assessment should have to be reiterated. This later decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing Revenue’s SLP in PCIT vs. MeetaGutgutia (2018) 96 taxmann. Com 468 (SC). 14. In view of above discussion, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Gahoi Dal & Oil Mills (supra), we are of the view that in the present appeal, the addition made by Ld. AO without having any incriminating material, is beyond the purview of section 153C / M/s Mohini Deepika Construction Company, ITA No. 67 & 77/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2012-13 & 2011-12 Page 9 of 12 153A and, therefore, clearly unsustainable. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the same and we uphold his action. The assessee succeeds in Ground No. 1 and 2. 15. At this stage, we would also like to submit that during the course of hearing, there was a brief discussion on merits of the issues as well, but since we have already agreed to the deletion made by Ld. CIT(A) on legal interpretation of section 153C /153A itself, there is no necessity to delve into the merits. 16. Thus, ITA No. 67/Ind/2020 of revenue is dismissed. IT(SS)A No. 77/Ind/2020 – Assessee’s appeal for AY 2011-12: 17. The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal: “1.That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-3 erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer for additions as much as he has failed to appreciate the provisions of section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the purpose thereof. 2. That the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)- 3 is vitiated and perverse on account of non-consideration of the evidences and submissions filed by the appellant. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-3 was thus passed in breach of principles of natural justice and the various evidences and explanations filed by the appellant were not considered by the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeal)-3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-3 erred and was not justified in confirming an addition of Rs. 5,10,000/- for capital contributed by the partners during the year as unexplained cash credits and treating the same as undisclosed income of the appellant. The addition of Rs. 5,10,000/- is illegal, arbitrary and without justification both in law and on facts.” M/s Mohini Deepika Construction Company, ITA No. 67 & 77/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2012-13 & 2011-12 Page 10 of 12 3. That the Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, urge, substitute, modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing.” 18. Both of these grounds relate to the same issue i.e. the addition of Rs. 5,10,000/- on account of unexplained partner’s capital contribution u/s 68. But,the Ground No. 1 raises a legal objection and Ground No. 2 is on merit. 19. On perusal of assessment-order, it is observed that this addition has been made by Ld. AO vide Para No. 6 of the assessment-year on account of capital contribution of Rs. 5,76,290/- brought by partners of assessee-firm but the assesseedid not file any supporting detailand thus failed to give any explanation to prove the source of such capital contribution.Thus, the addition is based on the identical set of facts and also discussed by Ld. AO in the same para, as in Ground No. 2 of the ITA No. 67/Ind/2020 of AY 2012-13 discussed in earlier paragraph. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee raised identical grounds for AY 2012-13 as well as AY 2011-12 before Ld. CIT(A) but the Ld. CIT(A) has, it seems due to oversight, missed to adjudicate ground of AY 2011-12 on legality and went to decide merit alone. Ld. AR submitted that although the Ld. CIT(A) has given a part-relief of Rs. 66,290/- on merit and restricted addition to Rs. 5,10,000/-, but that does not redress the grievance of assessee fully. Hence, the ground needs to be decided on legality basis itself. 20. Although we would have remanded this issue back to Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication since a lapse has occurred at that level, yet considering the fact that the issue is legal; identical to the issue already dealt with by in AY 2012-13 in foregoing paragraph; and the amount involved is also small; we think it appropriate to decide at our stage itself so as to avoid repetition of proceedings. 21. We have already observed, while dealing with ground No. 2 of the appeal for AY 2012-13, that the identical addition was made in the proceeding of section 153A without having any incriminating material and M/s Mohini Deepika Construction Company, ITA No. 67 & 77/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2012-13 & 2011-12 Page 11 of 12 the same was not sustainable in view of decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. Our same view applies mutadis mutandis to this ground of AY 2011-12, being on the same set of facts and law, and thus we are persuaded to delete the addition made by Ld. AO. Therefore, the assessee succeeds in Ground No. 1. Since we have adjudicated Ground No. 1 in favour of assessee, there is no need to adjudicate Ground No. 2 which is on merit. 22. This way, ITA No. 77/Ind/2020 of assessee is allowed. 23. Resultantly, ITA No. 67/Ind/2020 of revenue is dismissed and ITA No. 77/Ind/2020 of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T. Rules, 1963 on 31/01/2023. Order pronounced in the open court on ....../....../2023. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 31.01.2023 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad Benches, Ahmedabad M/s Mohini Deepika Construction Company, ITA No. 67 & 77/Ind/2020 Assessment year 2012-13 & 2011-12 Page 12 of 12 / 1. Date of taking dictation 2. Date of typing & draft order placed before the Dictating Member 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 4. Date on which the approved draft is placed before other Member 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 8. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 9. Date of dispatch of the Order