The DCITPanchmahal Circle, Panch Mahal V. Shri Kanaiyalal N.Hemrajani, Panch Mahal

MA 151/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8484 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Capital asset; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Question of law

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD , . ! ,'# ' $ BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MAS BY SL. NO(S). MA NO(S) [ IN ITA NO(S) ] ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) APPLICANT (S) RESPONDENT(S) 1. 151/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NO.663/AHD/05) 1996-97 ACIT CIRC-2 BARODA SHRI KANAIYALAL N.HEMRAJANI C/O.JAY JALARAM BRICKS WORKS B/H.RTO, GEETANAGAR SOC. GODHRA PAN:AAJPH2843 K 2. 152/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NO.664/AHD/05) 1996-97 -DO- SHRIINDRAJIT N.HEMRAJANI, GODHRA PAN:AAJPH7561A 3. 153/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NO.665/AHD/05) 1996-97 -DO- SHRI KAILASH N.HEMRAJANI, GODHRA PAN:AAJPH 2842J REVENUE BY : SHRI B.L.YADAV, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI J.P.SHAH !% & '#/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 8/6/2012 ) * & '# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/6/12 '+/ O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : [A] MA NO.151/AHD/2009 THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS FILED O N 6.5.2011 ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED IN THE NOMENCLA TURE DATED 20.5.2005. THE REVENUE HAS STATED THAT THE GROUND WHICH WAS RA ISED BEFORE THE MA NOS.151 TO 153/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NOS.663 TO 665/AHD/2005-RESPEVTIVELY) ASST.YEAR - 1996-97 - 2 - TRIBUNAL WAS AS FOLLOWS (REPRODUCED FROM THE APPEAL BEARING ITA NO.663/AHD/2005 A.Y. 1996-97, REVENUES APPEAL):- 1. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN GIVING RELIEF BY CONSIDERING THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME ON SALE OF LA ND AS NON-BUSINESS INCOME. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES, TH E LD.CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ON THE ABOVE POINTS. 2. THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION THE GRIEVANC E OF THE REVENUE IS AS FOLLOWS:- THE ITAT HAS HELD THAT THE ISSUE AS TO THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION RELATING TO SALE OF LAND IN QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN D ECIDED BY THE CIT(A) IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBJECTED TO THE AO'S ACTION WHEREBY PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND IN QUESTION WAS TAXE D AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AS AGAINST CAPITAL GAIN CLAIMED BY ASSESSE E. THE ITAT HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE GROUND NO.1 RAIS ED BY THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT ARISES OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A) B ECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAVING DELETED THE ADDITION, THE PROFIT TO THE EXTE NT AS WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE ITAT HAS CORRECTLY OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE WHET HER THE SALE OF LAND IS CAPITAL GAIN OR BUSINESS INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DEC IDED BY THE CIT(A) AND HE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.12,41,105/- O N SALE OF LAND ON OTHER REASONS/GROUNDS. HOWEVER IN VIEW OF THE DECI SION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC U/S CIT (229 ITR 383) THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH ARI SES FROM THE FACTS AS FOUND FROM THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVI NG A BEARING ON THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ITAT OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY DEPARTMEN T OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED ADDITI ONAL GROUND RAISED BEFORE THE ITAT AS THE PRIMARY FACTS ARE SAME AND A VAILABLE ON RECORDS. 3. LD.SR.DR MR.B.L.YADAV VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT ALT HOUGH THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE QUANTUM WHICH WAS DISPUTED MA NOS.151 TO 153/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NOS.663 TO 665/AHD/2005-RESPEVTIVELY) ASST.YEAR - 1996-97 - 3 - BUT FACTUALLY THE REVENUE WANTED TO AGITATE THE DEL ETION OF AN ADDITION OF RS.12,41,105/-. LD.DR HAS THEREFORE PLACED HIS RE LIANCE ON AN ANOTHER SUPPLEMENTARY LETTER THROUGH WHICH THE REVENUE HAS STATED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE ANY QUESTION O F LAW WHICH ARISES FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN SUPPORT PLACED RE LIANCE ON NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO.LTD. 229 ITR 383 (SC). LD.DR HA S COMMENTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE WHETHER T HE SALE OF LAND WAS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL GAIN OR BUSINESS INCOME THROU GH ITS GROUND OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE ITAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REQUESTE D TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS THAT WHETHER CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DE LETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.12,41,105/-. SINCE THE ISSUE ON ME RITS WAS NOT DECIDED, HENCE THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED WITH ADEQUATE DIREC TIONS. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, LD.AR MR.J.P.SHAH APPEARED AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION THAT THE REVENUE D EPARTMENT HAS ADMITTED ITS ERROR IN FRAMING THE GROUND OF APPEAL. MEANING THEREBY THE MISTAKE WAS NOT COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL BUT BY TH E REVENUE DEPARTMENT. HE HAS QUOTED RELEVANT PARAGRAPH OF A SUPPLEMENTARY PETITION OF THE REVENUE DATED 10/05/2011:- WHILE DECIDING THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA NO.663/AHD/2005, THE ITAT HELD THAT THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE TRANSACTION RELATING TO SALE OF LAND AND PROFIT FROM WHICH WAS DECLARED AS CAPITAL GAIN WAS A BUSINESS TRANSACTION OR SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE GRO UND NO.(1) RAISED BY THE REVENUE DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAVING DELETED THE ADDITION, THE PROFIT TO THE EXTENT, AS WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, STANDS ASS ESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. HENCE NO FINDING WAS GIVEN ON TH E MERITS OF THE MA NOS.151 TO 153/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NOS.663 TO 665/AHD/2005-RESPEVTIVELY) ASST.YEAR - 1996-97 - 4 - ADDITION AND THE GROUND WAS DISMISSED DUE TO ERROR IN FRAMING THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 4.1. ACCORDING TO MR.SHAH, IT IS VERY STRANGE THAT THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT IS NOW ASKING TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL GROUND TO BE RAISED ALTHOUGH SUCH A REQUEST WAS NEVER MADE AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND NOW THE ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN PRONOUNCED. HE HAS REF ERRED THE FOLLOWING PARA FROM THE SAID PETITION OF THE REVENUE:- IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FIL ED DTD: 4/5/2009 THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASE OF NTPC U/S.CIT (229 ITR 383) THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDI CTION TO EXAMINE A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH ARISES FROM THE FAC TS AS FOUND FROM THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVING A B EARING ON THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ITAT OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY DEPARTMEN T OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED ADDITI ONAL GROUND RAISED BEFORE THE ITAT AS THE PRIMARY FACTS ARE SAM E AND AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. THEREFORE, A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION WAS FILED ON 4/ 5/09 BEFORE THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD WITH A REQUEST TO DECIDE THE ISSUE WHETHER SALE OF LAND IS CAPITAL GAIN OR BUSINESS INCOME. HOWEVE R, THE ITAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REQUESTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON M ERITS I.E. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,41,105/-. THEREFORE, THE EARLIER GROUND TAKE N BEFORE THE ITAT IN THE MISC.PETITION FILED ON 04.05.09 MAY BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. I.E. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.12,41,105/-. 5. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), WE HAVE FOUN D THAT VIDE PARA 5.4 MA NOS.151 TO 153/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NOS.663 TO 665/AHD/2005-RESPEVTIVELY) ASST.YEAR - 1996-97 - 5 - THE IMPUGNED ADDITION, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF CONT ROVERSY, WAS DELETED. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE HAS CHOSEN NOT TO CONTEST THE SAID DELETION WHEN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. THE REVENUE HAS OPTED TO RAISE THE GROUND IN RESPECT OF THE NATURE OF GAIN WHETHER ON SALE OF LAND IT WAS NON-BUSINESS INCOME OR NOT. THE TR IBUNAL IS THEREFORE EXPECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED BEFORE IT, HENCE VIDE PARA-15 THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN THE VIEW AS FOLLOWS: - 15. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE GROUND NO.(1) RAISED BY THE REVENUE DOES NO ARISE OUT OF T HE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAVING DELETED THE ADDITION, THE PROFIT TO THE EXTENT, AS WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, STANDS ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. MORE SO, THE A SSESSEE IS NOT IN APPEAL ON THIS POINT. 5.1. NOW THE REVENUE WANTS TO OVERCOME ITS OWN MIST AKE THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, SO THAT THE IMPUGNED QUANTU M ADDITION CAN ALSO BE CHALLENGED BUT THE LAW DO NOT PERMIT SUCH AN ATT EMPT. THE JURISDICTION AS PRESCRIBED U/S.254(2) IS LIMITED TO THE EXTENT TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE FIND NO FORCE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE, HENCE HEREBY DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THIS MA NO.151/AHD/2009 IS DISMI SSED. [ B ] MA NOS.152 & 153/AHD/2009 7. THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS PERTAINS TO TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES, HOWEVER, BOTH THE PETITIONS HAVE BEEN F ILED BY THE REVENUE ON 6.5.2009 ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DAT ED 20.5.2005. MA NOS.151 TO 153/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NOS.663 TO 665/AHD/2005-RESPEVTIVELY) ASST.YEAR - 1996-97 - 6 - 8. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE TRIBUNA L HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT THE FACTS OF THESE TWO CASES WERE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF AN ANOTHER CASE, NAMELY SHRI KANAIYAHLAL N. HEMRAJANI. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PETITION IS THEREFORE REPRODUCED BELOW:- THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENTS HAS CONSIDERED THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SALE OF LAN D AT VILLAGE GOVINDI OF TALUKA GODHRA AS THAT OF BUSINESS NATURE , AFTER REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT TRANSACTION IN Q UESTION WAS RELATING TO INVESTMENTS AND THEREFORE, PROFIT EARNE D WAS CAPITAL GAIN. AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIM ATED THE SALE PRICE OF THE ASSESSEES 1/4 TH SHARES IN QUESTION ADOPTING A RATE OF RS.475 PER SQ.YD. WHICH RESULTED IN AN ADDITION OF RS.12,41,105/- IN OTHER WORDS THE SALE PRICE OF ASSESSEES 1/4 TH SHARE WAS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.13,03,775/- AGAINST PRICE OF RS.62,670/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY THE TOTAL PROFIT ON THIS TRANSACTION WAS AT RS.36,000/- AND R S.12,41,105/- BEING ENHANCEMENT DUE TO ADOPTION OF SALE PARTICULA RS OF RS.475/- PER SQ.YD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER MADE AN A DDITION OF RS.3,43,456/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION. THIS FIGURE WAS ARRIVED AT BY DEDUCT ING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS.2,57,378/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS.6,00,834/- DETERMINED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER. THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE FACTS IN THE CAE OF SH RI KANAIYALAL HEMRAJANI & IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES I.E. SHRI IND RAJIT HEMRAJANI IS DIFFERENT. IN THE CASE OF THE KANAIYALAL HEMRAJ ANI IT WAS THE CASE OF ESTIMATION OF SALE PRICE & ALSO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE DUE TO REPORT OF VALUATIO N OFFICER WHILE IN THIS CASE, THE ADDITION IS ON MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION PURCHASE PRICE & THEREBY ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED IN VESTMENT U/S.69B THEREFORE THE ITAT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TH E FACTS IN THIS CASE IS SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI KANAIYA LAL HEMRAJANI. IT IS THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE HONBLE ITAT MAY VE RIFY THE MERIT OF THE CASE & DECIDE APPEALS FILED IN BOTH CASES AS THE FACTS & THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED IN THIS CASE IS DIFFERENT F ROM THE CASE OF SHRI KANIYALAL HEMRAJANI. THIS MISC.PETITION IS TH EREFORE FILED MA NOS.151 TO 153/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NOS.663 TO 665/AHD/2005-RESPEVTIVELY) ASST.YEAR - 1996-97 - 7 - AGAINST THE ORDER OF ITAT AS ABOVE FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.664/AHD/2005 ON MERITS. 3. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE LD.SR.DR MR.B.L.YAD AV APPEARED AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NAR RATED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE LD.AR M R.J.P.SHAH HAS INFORMED THAT VIDE PARA-23, THE RESPECTED TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE CIT(A) HAD RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF KANAIYALAL N . HEMRAJANI THEREFORE THE TRIBUNAL CAN FOLLOW ITS DECISION ARRI VED AT IN THAT CASE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND AFTER PERUSAL O F THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, NAMELY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE ORDE R OF THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH DATED 20/05/2005 IT WAS NOTED THA T TO SETTLE THIS CONTROVERSY AS RAISED BY THE REVENUE, IT IS WORTH T O MENTION FOLLOWING FEW PARAGRAPHS OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER AS FOLLOWS:- 23. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, BOTH THE PARTIES WERE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) WHILE DECIDING THESE TWO APPE ALS OF S/SHRI INDRAJIT N.HEMRAJANI & KAILASH N.HEMRAJANI, GODHRA HAD RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KANAIYALAL N.HEMRA JANI AND, THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL MAY FOLLOW THE ITS DECISION ARRIVED AT IN THE CASE OF SHRI KANIYALAL N.HEMRAJANI (ABOVE CITED ITA NO.722/AHD/2005 FOR ASST.YEAR 1996-97). 28. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE FACT THAT THE REVENUES APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI KANAIYALAL N.HEMRAJANI, WHICH WAS RELATING TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE PRICE OF LAND DETERMINED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER MA NOS.151 TO 153/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NOS.663 TO 665/AHD/2005-RESPEVTIVELY) ASST.YEAR - 1996-97 - 8 - ON THE BASIS OF ADOPTION OF SALE PRICE OF RS.475/- PER SQ.YARD, HAVING BEEN DISMISSED BY US, THE ORDERS OF THE CIT( APEPALS), IN THESE CASES ALSO, ON THE POINT OF ADDITION ON ACCOU NT OF INVESTMENT IN LAND STANDS CONFIRMED. 29. SO FAR AS THE VALIDITY PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE CIT(APPEALS) IN THE CASE OF KANAIYAL AL N.HEMRAJANI HAD UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, WE ARE SURPRISED AS TO HOW THE CIT(APPEALS)HAS ALLOWED THIS GROUND IN THE CASE OF THESE TWO ASSESSEES. ANYHOW, THE REVENUE HAVING NOT OBJECTED TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS POINT, WE ARE UNABLE TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE. 6. ONCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS DULY NOTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND TAKEN THE COGNIZANCE OF THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH T HE SIDES AND ON THAT BASIS FINALIZED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THEREFOR E AT THIS STAGE THROUGH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION REVENUE HAS FAILED TO DEM ONSTRATE ANY MISTAKE, WHAT TO SAY AN APPARENT MISTAKE, HENCE THE SE PETITIONS ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE MISCELLANEOUS PETIT IONS ARE DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) ( ) '# ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 15 / 6 /2012 ,'..!, .!../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS MA NOS.151 TO 153/AHD/2009 (IN ITA NOS.663 TO 665/AHD/2005-RESPEVTIVELY) ASST.YEAR - 1996-97 - 9 - '+ & -. /'.* '+ & -. /'.* '+ & -. /'.* '+ & -. /'.*/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 01 / THE APPLICANTS 2. -201 / THE RESPONDENT 3. 3 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 3() / THE CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD 5. .67 -! , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 78 9% / GUARD FILE. '+! '+! '+! '+! / BY ORDER, 2. - //TRUE COPY// : :: :/ // / ; ; ; ; ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DIRECT DICTATION ON COMPUTER ON .. 8.6.12 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 11.6.12 OTHER MEMBER 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 THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S15.6.12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 15.6.12 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER