M/s. B.Tex Ointment Mfg. Co., Navsari V. The Jt.CIT.,Navsari Circle, Navsari

MA 259/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7444 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , . .!'#$, % & BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.259/AHD/2010 (IN I.T.A. NO.2768/AHD/2007) ( ' ( ' ( ' ( ' ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) M/S.B.TEX OINTMENT MANUFACTURING CO. C-17, UDYOG NAGAR NAVSARI (ORIGINAL APPELLANT) ' ' ' ' / VS. JOINT CIT NAVSARI CIRCLE NAVSARI (ORIGINAL RESPONDENT) * % ./+, ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACFD 8508 N ( APPLICANT ) .. ( -.*/ / RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY : SHRI M.K.PATEL, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.C. SHARMA, D.R. '0 1 2% / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 11/11/2011 3'( 1 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/01/2012 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 30/11/2010 R ECEIVED BY THE REGISTRY ON 02/12/2010 PERTAINS TO THE A.Y. 2004-05 SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF AN ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AS REFERRED SUPRA IN T HE NOMENCLATURE, DATED 30/10/2010. IN RESPECT OF THE QUANTUM CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPLICANT AS NARRATED IN THE SAID PETITION IS AS FOLLOWS:- MA NO.295/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.2768/AHD/2007) M/S.B.TEX OINTMENT MFG.CO. VS. JCIT ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 2 - (2) THERE IS AN APPARENT CONTRADICTION IN PARAGR APHS 11 AND 13 OF THE ABOVE ORDER, IN AS MUCH AS, IN PARA 11 IT I S CLEARLY MENTIONED BY WAY OF ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS IN RESPECT OF OPENING INVESTMENT OF RS.282.42 LACS, WHEREAS, IN PARA 13, PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS CONFIRMED ON THE SAME O PENING INVESTMENT OF RS.282.42 LACS. IT IS ALSO SETTLED L AW THAT DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE ON THE OPENING BALANCE AS IT CAN BE PROCESSED ONLY IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR OR THE ACTUAL YEAR IN WHICH THE INVESTMENT IS MADE. FURTHER, IN THE FINDING IN PARA 13, IT IS CLEARLY M ENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUND TO COVER THE INVESTMENT MADE IN CURRENT YEAR OF RS.54.90 LACS. FURTHER, TH E PROPOSED DISALLOWANCE IS CONFIRMED BY TAKING THE OPENING INT EREST FREE FUND AVAILABLE AS RS.1,54,52,895/- AS AGAINST THE OPENIN G INVESTMENT OF RS.2,82,42,726/- AND THEREBY IT IS HELD THAT THE BA LANCE OF RS.1,27,89,831/- IS THE INVESTMENT OUT OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVOCATE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD POINTED OUT AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE SUMMARIZED B ALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2002, 31.03.2003 & 31.03.2004 ON PAGES 27 TO 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME WOULD SHOW THAT IN FACT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, THERE WAS A NET REDUCTION OF INVEST MENT OF RS.66.13 LACS (PAGE 28 OF PAPER BOOK) AND A PERUSAL OF PAGE 27 OF PAPER BOOK WOULD SHOW THAT FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31 .03.2002, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUND OF RS.38 4.65 LACS AS AGAINST THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THAT YEAR OF RS.348. 55 LACS. HOWEVER, WITH UTMOST RESPECT THIS VITAL FACT IS NOT MENTIONED OR CONSIDERED IN THE ABOVE ORDER. 2. FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPLICANT, LD.AR MR.M.K.PA TEL APPEARED AND HIS FIRST PLANK OF ARGUMENT IS THAT NO SUCH DISALLO WANCE OF INTEREST WAS MA NO.295/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.2768/AHD/2007) M/S.B.TEX OINTMENT MFG.CO. VS. JCIT ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 3 - NEVER MADE IN EARLIER YEARS IN RESPECT OF THE OPENI NG INVESTMENT OF RS.282.42 LACS. ACCORDING TO HIM, SINCE THE RESPEC TED TRIBUNAL HAD MADE A PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON THE AMO UNT OF THE OPENING INVESTMENT, THEREFORE BY MAKING A PROPORTIONATE DIS ALLOWANCE A MISTAKE HAS BEEN COMMITTED. HIS SECOND PLANK OF ARGUMENT I S THAT ON ONE HAND, THE TRIBUNAL HAS STATED THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT INTEREST-FREE FUND TO COVER UP THE INVESTMENT OF THE CURRENT YEAR, THEREF ORE, BY MAKING A PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITT ED A MISTAKE. THE LD.AR HAS AGAIN DRAW OUR ATTENTION ON PAGE NOS.27, 28 & 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND STATED THAT THE BALANCE-SHEET DRAWN AS ON 31.3.2002 HAS STATED THAT OUT OF THE INTEREST-FREE FUND IN THE SHAPE OF CURRENT CAPITAL OF RS.384.65 LACS, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN INVESTMENT OF RS.348.55 LACS. THEREAFTER, FOR THE BALANCE-SHEET DRAWN AS ON 31.3. 2003 OUT OF THE CURRENT CAPITAL HELD AS INTEREST-FREE FUND OF RS.154.53, TH E INVESTMENT WAS MADE TO THE TUNE OF RS.282.41 LACS. IN RESPECT OF THE B ALANCE-SHEET UNDER CONSIDERATION DRAWN AS ON 31.3.2004, THE CURRENT CA PITAL WHICH WAS TREATED AS INTEREST-FREE FUND WAS AT RS.257.07 LACS AGAINST THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE AT RS.337.32 LACS. HIS ARGUMEN T IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS WRONG IN TAKING THE OPENING INTEREST-F REE FUND AT RS.154.53 LACS AND FROM THE SAID FIGURE ADJUSTED RS.282.41 LACS AS THE INVESTMENT AND THEREAFTER HELD THAT THE BALANCE OF RS.1,27,89, 831/- WAS THE INVESTMENT WITHIN THE INTEREST-FREE FUNDS. THE LEA RNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THER E WAS A NET REDUCTION OF INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.66.13 LACS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD THEREFORE S UFFICIENT INTEREST-FREE FUND, HENCE, NO PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD H AVE BEEN MADE. MA NO.295/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.2768/AHD/2007) M/S.B.TEX OINTMENT MFG.CO. VS. JCIT ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 4 - 3. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE MR.D.C.SHARMA APPEARED AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. HE HAS PLEADED THAT ALL THE AFOREMENTION ED FACTUAL ASPECT HAVE CORRECTLY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND NO FA CTUAL OR LEGAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED WHILE WORKING OUT THE PROPORTIONATE D ISALLOWANCE VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.13 AS UNDER:- 13. ON BEING ASKED BY THE BENCH THE LEARNED AUTH ORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL PLACED AT PAGE NOS.72 TO 89 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT THE TOT AL PARTNERS CAPITAL CONSTITUTE OF ` .7,57,06,838/- WAS HAVING TWO COMPONENTS I.E. FIXED CAPITAL OF ` .5 CRORE AND CURRENT CAPITAL OF ` .2,57,06,838/- . IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT INTEREST WAS PAID BY THE A SSESSEE FIRM TO THE PARTNERS ONLY IN RESPECT OF FIXED CAPITAL OF ` .5 CRORE AT THE RATE 12% WHICH WORKED OUT TO ` .60 LACS. NO INTEREST WAS PAID TO THE PARTNER BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION IN THE CURRENT CAPITAL ACCOUNT. WE FIND THAT THE OPE NING BALANCE OF SUCH INTEREST FREE CURRENT CAPITAL ACCOUNT WAS ` .1,54,52,895/- AND AFTER ADDING OF THE PROFIT OF THE YEAR AND ADJUSTME NT OF WITHDRAWALS ETC., THE CLOSING BALANCE WAS ` .2,57,06,837/-. ON THE ABOVE FACTS WE FIND THAT THE OPENING INTEREST FREE FUND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WAS TO THE TUNE OF ` .1,54,52,895/-, THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD INVESTMENT OF ` .2,82,42,726/- WHICH CAN BE HELD TO BE INVESTMENT OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUND CAN BE ` .1,54,52,895/- ONLY. THUS IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE BALANCE AMOUNT ` .1,27,89,831/- INVESTED IN SHARES WERE OUT OF INTEREST BEARING FUN DS AND AS THE INCOME FROM SAID INVESTMENT IS EXEMPT FROM TAX PROP ORTIONATE INTEREST ON THE AFORESAID AMOUNT CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE CURRENT YEAR OF ` .54,90,000/- WE FIND THAT ACCRETION IN THE INTEREST FREE CURRENT CAPITAL FUND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WAS M ORE THAN THE MA NO.295/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.2768/AHD/2007) M/S.B.TEX OINTMENT MFG.CO. VS. JCIT ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 5 - SAID AMOUNT AND THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERI AL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE INVESTMENT W AS MADE OUT OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE SAME WAS MADE OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR C ONSIDERED VIEW NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WAS WARRANTED IN RESPEC T OF CURRENT YEARS INVESTMENT OF ` .54.90 LACS AND BROUGHT FORWARD INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF ` .1,54,52,895/-. THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WAS WARRANTED IN RESPECT OF BALANCE BROUGHT FORWARD INV ESTMENT OF ` .1,27,89,831/- AND THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE OF INTER EST AT THE RATE 12% THEREON WHICH WORKS OUT TO ` .15,34,780/- WAS JUSTIFIED. WE THEREFORE, MODIFY THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES AND RESTORE THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE TO THE EXT ENT OF ` .15,34,780/- AND DELETE THE REMAINING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF ` .11,38,565/-. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE CONSCIENTIOUS VIEW THAT NO MISTAKE MUCH LESS TO SA Y AN APPARENT MISTAKE WAS COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS AN ADMITTED F ACTUAL POSITION, NOT CONTRAVENED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT ON THE FIXED PARTNERS CAPITAL OF RS.500 LACS THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE SAID AMOUNT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT REMAINED INTER EST-BEARING DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL. THEN, LD.AR HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THAT THE TOTAL INVESTMENT AT THE END OF THE YEAR WERE 337.32 LACS AS AGAINST THE TOTAL INVESTMENT AS ON 31.3.2003 WERE 282.41 LACS. MEANING THEREBY THERE WAS AN ENHANCEMENT OR INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF THE INVESTMENT ON WHICH TAX FREE INCOME IN THE SHAPE OF DIVIDEND, ETC . WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT AS ON 31.3.2003 THE CURRENT CAPITAL, WHICH WAS STATED TO BE INTEREST-FREE, THE CLOSING BALANCE WAS MA NO.295/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.2768/AHD/2007) M/S.B.TEX OINTMENT MFG.CO. VS. JCIT ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 6 - 154.53 WHICH HAD GONE UP TO 257.07 LACS AT THE CLOS E OF THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD AS ON 31.3.2004 I.E. THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION. ON THE BASIS OF THOSE FACTS, THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS NO TED THAT AS ON 31.3.2003 AS AGAINST THE INVESTMENT OF 282.41 LACS THE INTEREST FREE CURRENT CAPITAL WAS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.154.53 , MEANING THEREBY THE BALANCE OF RS.1,27,89,831/- WAS THE COMPONENT WHICH WAS INTEREST- BEARING. THAT INTEREST-BEARING COMPONENT WAS PART AND PARCEL OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE AS ON 31.3.2004, ADMITTEDLY CARRIED OVER DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE TRIBUNAL HAS THEREFORE TA KEN AN ASSIDUOUS DECISION AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF ALL THOSE FACTS AND FIGURES. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A VIEW WHICH IS POSSIBLE AS ALSO PLAUSIBLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THAT VIEW IS INCONFORMITY WITH THE EXIST ING FIGURES OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, APPARENTLY THERE WA S NO ERROR COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS WRONG TO SAY THAT A MISTAKE WAS COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS AN APPARENT ON THE FACT OF RECORD. WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ARGUMENT AND THE ALLEGATION AS ALLEGED IN THIS PETITION, HENCE, THIS PART AND THE ARGUMENT IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 4.1 THE LD.AR HAS ARGUED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, THERE WAS NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN RESP ECT OF CLOSING BALANCE OF ` .2,57,06,837/-, THEREFORE, A CONSISTENT VIEW IS REQ UIRED TO BE TAKEN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE QUESTIO N OF A CONSISTENT VIEW ONLY ARISES IF IN THE PAST A CORRECT A JUDICIOUS AN D AS PER LAW A DECISION HAD BEEN TAKEN. BUT IF IN THE PAST THE VIEW TAKEN FOUND TO BE NOT IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW, THEN THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION T O CONSISTENTLY REPEAT THE MA NO.295/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.2768/AHD/2007) M/S.B.TEX OINTMENT MFG.CO. VS. JCIT ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 7 - SAME ERROR. RATHER, ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS A TRA IT LAW THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES-JUDICATA DO NOT APPLY ON THE TAX PROCEEDINGS. THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL FOR THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT TO TAKE A CORRECT LEGAL VIEW IN ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IF ANY TIME SUBSEQUENTLY A C ORRECT LEGAL VIEW IS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN. THERE IS NO POINT IN PERPETU ATELY REPEATING THE MISTAKE. IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION, DUE TO THIS REASO N THE PRINCIPLE OF RES- JUDICATA APPLIES IN TAX PROCEEDINGS. 4.2. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, A DECISION OF DH ARAMCHAND SURANA VS. ITO 61 ITD 115 (ITAT MADRAS)[TM] HAS BEEN CITED FOR THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER OF REVIE W. AN ANOTHER DECISION HAS ALSO BEEN CITED FROM THE SIDE OF THE R EVENUE, VIZ.CIT VS. RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO. 203 ITR 497 (BOM) W HEREIN THE LEGAL PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE COURT WAS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER U/S.254(2) OF THE I.T.ACT TO REVIEW ITS ORDER AND ITS POWER EXTENDS ONLY TO RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IN THIS DECISION, THE HON'BLE COURT HAS ALSO MENTIONED THA T FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT MAY CONSTITUTE AN ERROR OF JUDGEMENT B UT THAT IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT. LD.DR HAS ALSO REFERRED IN THE C ASE OF HOMI MEHTA & SONS (P)LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 63 ITD 15 (ITAT-M UMBAI) AND SUBODH CHANDRA PATEL 265 ITR 445 (GUJ.). CONSIDERI NG ALL THESE DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT MERELY NON-MENTI ONING OF FEW OF THE JUDGEMENTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO LD.AR D ID NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPARENT ERROR TO BE RECTIFIED U/S.254(2) OF THE I. T.ACT. MA NO.295/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.2768/AHD/2007) M/S.B.TEX OINTMENT MFG.CO. VS. JCIT ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 8 - 4.3. RATHER, WE HAVE DULY EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THO SE DECISIONS WHICH WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CITED LD.AR, VIZ. RELIAN CE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. 313 ITR 340 (BOM), HERO CYCLES 323 ITR 518 (P& H) AND RADICO KHAITAN LTD. 274 ITR 354 (ALL.). ALL THESE DECISI ONS ARE VERY MUCH SPECIFIC ON THE RESPECTIVE FACTS OF EACH APPEAL, HO WEVER, THE BROAD LEGAL PROPOSITION LAID DOWN THEREIN WAS TO EXAMINE THE OV ERALL POSITION OF THE AVAILABILITY OF NON-INTEREST BEARING FUNDS VIS--VI S INVESTMENT IN EXEMPTED INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RESPECTE D CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS EXAMINED THAT ASPECT AS WELL ON FACTS, THOUGH M IGHT HAVE NOT PARTICULARLY REFERRED THESE DECISIONS, HENCE, IN OU R CONSIDERED OPINION EVEN THEN THERE WAS NO APPARENT MISTAKE BECAUSE THE OUTCOME WOULD OTHERWISE REMAIN THE SAME. UNDER THE TOTALITY OF T HE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO FORCE IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITI ON OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- ( A.K. GARODIA ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER AHMEDABAD; DATED 06 / 01 /2012 52..', .'../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS MA NO.295/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.2768/AHD/2007) M/S.B.TEX OINTMENT MFG.CO. VS. JCIT ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 9 - 4 1 -6 7 6( 4 1 -6 7 6( 4 1 -6 7 6( 4 1 -6 7 6(/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. */ / THE APPLICANT-ASSESSEE 2. -.*/ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 8 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8() / THE CIT(A)-VALSAD 5. 6;! -' , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. !$ <0 / GUARD FILE. 4' 4' 4' 4' / BY ORDER, .6 - //TRUE COPY// = == =/ // / + + + + ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION..11.11.2011 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 14.11.2011 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 5.1.2012. 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.S 6/1/2012. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 6/1/2012 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