THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA V. SMT. MRUNALIBEN JIGAR PATEL, VADODARA

ITSSA 227/AHD/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had deleted certain additions made by the Assessing Officer under Sections 153A and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The additions included disallowances under Chapter VI-A, unexplained bank credits, and additions under Section 50C related to property transactions. The Tribunal examined whether the assessments were based on incriminating material found during the search and seizure operation conducted on the assessee's premises, and whether the assessment year in question was abated or unabated.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472302 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 10-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2019
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., PCIT vs. Saumya Construction, CIT vs. Kabul Chawla
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRITHVI RAJ MEENA; CORRECTING
• Assessee Lawyers: TUSHAR HEMANI; PARIMALSINH B. PARMAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Unexplained cash credit; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital Gains; Search and seizure; Charitable institution
• Section: 143(3); 132; 153A; 139(1); 13; 63; 50C

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदा बा द \u0012ा यपीठ “डी“, अहमदा बा द । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सु\u0018ी सुिच\u001aा का \u001bले, \u0012ा ियक सद\u001d एवं \u0018ी मकरंद वसंत महा देवकर, लेखा सद\u001d क े सम#। ] ] BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर(SS)अपील सं /IT(SS)A No. 227/Ahd/2019 िनधा \u0010रण वष\u0010 /Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dy.CIT Central Circle-2 Vadodara – 390 007 बनाम/ v/s. Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel A-8, Gurukrupa Society Harni Road Vadodara – 390 006 \u0014थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AJXPP 7417 N अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue by : Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 17/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the Revenue arises against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 21.02.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The appeal is directed against the deletion of certain additions made by the Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as “AO”] in the assessment framed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] vide order dated 30.12.2016. IT(SS)A No.227/Ahd/2019 The DCIT vs. Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 2 Facts of the case: 2. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 13.11.2014 at the premises of Sigma Group and other connected persons, including the assessee. In the post search proceedings under Section 153A of the Act were initiated, and a notice was issued to the assessee requiring her to furnish her return of income. The assessee filed her return of income for AY 2013-14, declaring a total income of Rs.2,50,890/-, which was identical to the income originally declared under Section 139(1) of the Act. 2.1. Upon examining the return of income, the AO found that the assessee had claimed a deduction of Rs.72,600/- under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The AO issued a show-cause notice to the assessee on 08.11.2016, asking for evidence of the investments made to claim the deduction. The assessee did not provide any documentary evidence or respond to the show-cause notice. Consequently, the AO disallowed the deduction and added Rs.72,600/- to the assessee’s total income. 2.2. The assessee had declared agricultural income of Rs.1,02,500/- in her return of income for AY 2013-14. The AO, during the assessment proceedings, sought details regarding the agricultural activities undertaken by the assessee, including the nature of the agricultural land, the type of crops grown, expenses incurred for earning the agricultural income and bills and invoices related to the sale of agricultural produce. The AO issued a show- cause notice asking the assessee to substantiate the agricultural income claimed. In response, the assessee submitted 7/12 landholding extracts, which showed the ownership of agricultural land but did not furnish any further evidence regarding the crops grown or sales receipts. The AO held IT(SS)A No.227/Ahd/2019 The DCIT vs. Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 3 that merely submitting landholding documents without substantiating the actual agricultural activity or income was insufficient. Therefore, the AO added Rs.1,02,500/- to the assessee’s total income. 2.3. The AO, during the assessment proceedings, observed that there were unexplained credits amounting to Rs.31,44,828/- in the assessee’s bank account with Bank of Baroda, Harni Road Branch, Vadodara (A/c. No. 26520100005116) for the year under consideration. 2.4. The AO issued a show-cause notice on 08.11.2016 asking the assessee to explain the source of these credits and provide supporting documents. The AO also directed the assessee to furnish details of all bank accounts maintained by her during the relevant financial year. The assessee did not provide any explanation or documentary evidence to support the deposits made in her bank account. In the absence of any explanation, the AO treated the amount of Rs.31,44,828/- as unexplained income and added it to the assessee’s total income. 2.5. The most significant addition made by the AO was under Section 50C of the Act. The AO found that the assessee had sold two properties to Parishram Education & Medical Charitable Trust (PEMCT) for a total consideration of Rs.4,90,000/- however, the stamp duty paid for the registration of these properties indicated a much higher value. The AO invoked Section 50C of the Act. Since the stamp duty value was much higher than the declared sale consideration, the AO made the additions to the assessee’s income as tabulated below: IT(SS)A No.227/Ahd/2019 The DCIT vs. Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 4 Property Details Sale Consideration (as per Sale Deed) Stamp Duty Valuation Addition under Section 50C Survey No. 39/B/2 Paiki 1 Rs. 2,90,000/- Rs. 3,56,63,265/- Rs. 3,53,73,265/- (3,56,63,265 - 2,90,000) Survey No. 39/B/2 Paiki 2 Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 1,87,14,285/- Rs. 1,85,14,285/- (1,87,14,285 - 2,00,000) 2.6. The total addition under Section 50C of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,38,87,550/-, which was deemed to be the assessee’s unexplained income from the transfer of properties. 2.7. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal. The CIT(A) provided significant relief to the assessee by deleting the major additions made by the AO, except for the agricultural income addition. The order was based on the legal principle that for unabated assessments, no additions could be made under Section 153A of the Act unless they were supported by incriminating material found during the search. The summary of his decision for the A.Y. 2013-14 is – Issue Addition by AO (Rs.) CIT(A)'s Decision Disallowance under Chapter VI-A 72,600/- Deleted Unexplained Credit Entries (Bank A/c) 31,44,828/- Deleted Agricultural Income 1,02,500/- Upheld Addition under Section 50C 5,38,87,550/- Deleted IT(SS)A No.227/Ahd/2019 The DCIT vs. Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 5 3. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,02,500/- on account of disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A, by not appreciating the fact involved in this case that the assessee could not produce documentary evidence regarding investment made under chapter VI-A of Income-tax Act and holding that no incriminating material was found during search for. A.Y.2013-14 and hence the proceeding for A.Y.2013-14 remained unabated. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5,38,87,550/- on account of difference in the stamp duty valuation of the property u/s 50C of the I.T. Act, by not appreciating the fact involved in this case that the property transaction undertaken by the assessee is squarely covered within the meaning of transfer u/s 2(47) of the I.T. Act and hence the assessee was liable to disclose the sale consideration as per section 50C of the I.T. Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying on various decisions of the Hon'ble Court including the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd., when the facts involved in this case are distinguishable for the reason that all the referred decisions cover the situation where assessment for a particular year was completed. However, in the instant case no assessment for A.Y. 2013-14 was completed. Therefore, the issue involved in this case is covered under exception criteria as mentioned in para 10 of circular No.03 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 and amended on 20.08.2018. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order the Ld. CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad may be set aside and that of the AO may be restored to the above extent. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any grounds) of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 4. The first ground of appeal was revised by the Revenue by correcting the amount of Rs.1,02,500/- to Rs.72,600/- as there was typo-error in the grounds filed originally by the Revenue. IT(SS)A No.227/Ahd/2019 The DCIT vs. Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 6 5. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld.Departmental Representative (DR) stated that there was a typographical error in the first ground of appeal and, therefore, a revised ground was filed. The DR further stated that the details of the sale deed of two properties were found at the time of search and, therefore, it is incriminating material. The DR also stated that the search was conducted on 13-11-2014 and the assessment for the AY 2013-14 was not completed, therefore the assessment year under consideration is abated year. 6. Shri Tushar Hemani, Ld.Sr.Advocate (AR) of the assessee stated that the AO made an addition of Rs.72,600/- on account of disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A which was made on the basis of examining the computation of income and not on the basis of any incriminating material found during the search. The Ld.AR(s) argued that the assessment for AY 2013-14 was an unabated assessment year. It is well established by judicial precedents that an assessment under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act can only be framed based on incriminating material found during the course of the search. In this case, no such material was found. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the following judicial decisions: i. PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. - (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC). ii. PCIT vs. Saumya Construction - (2017) 387 ITR 529 (Gujarat High Court). iii. CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - (2015) 380 ITR 573 (Delhi High Court). 6.1. The Ld.AR relied on the order of CIT(A) stating that CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.72,600/-. IT(SS)A No.227/Ahd/2019 The DCIT vs. Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 7 6.2. The Ld.AR pointed out that the addition of Rs.5,38,87,550/- under Section 50C of the Act was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The AO's reference to the registered sale deeds cannot be treated as incriminating material, as these are regular, lawful transactions. Since AY 2013-14 was an unabated assessment year, any additions under Section 153A of the Act must be based on incriminating material found during the search, as per established jurisprudence. The AR once again cited the judicial precedents mentioned above. 6.3. The Ld.AR provided detailed facts about the properties, citing findings from the CIT(A)'s order. During the search at the residence of Shri Shailesh Shah, the father of the appellant, Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel, the AO discovered that the appellant had sold two properties to Parishram Education & Medical Charitable Trust (PEMCT). The details of the transactions are as follows: Particulars of the Property Purchaser / Consideration as per Sale Deed (Rs.) Stamp Duty Paid (Rs.) Circle Rate for Stamp Duty (Rs.) Revenue Survey No. 39/B/2 Paiki 1, Village Bakrol PEMCT (23.05.2012) 2,90,000/- 17,47,500/- 3,56,63,265/- Revenue Survey No. 39/B/2 Paiki 2, Village Bakrol PEMCT (23.05.2012) 2,00,000/- 9,17,500/- 1,87,14,285/- Total 4,90,000/- 26,65,000/- 5,43,77,550/- 6.4. The two properties in question were originally purchased in FY 1997- 98, with the following details: IT(SS)A No.227/Ahd/2019 The DCIT vs. Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 8 Date Particulars of the Land Consideration (Rs.) Name of the Purchasers 08.12.1997 Revenue Survey No. 39/B/2 Paiki 1, Village Bakrol 22,500/- Smt. Jyotsna Shah (mother), Shri Shailesh Shah (father), Ms. Deepali Shah (sister), Mr. Harsh Shah (brother), and Self (appellant) 08.12.1997 Revenue Survey No. 39/B/2 Paiki 2, Village Bakrol 1,57,500/- Same as above 6.5. The assessee and her family members transferred the properties to Parishram Education & Medical Charitable Trust (PEMCT) in 2005 and 2007, as shown below: Date Particulars of the Land Consideration (Rs.) Name of the Transferors 25.05.2005 Revenue Survey No. 39/B/2 Paiki 1 2,00,000/- Smt. Jyotsna Shah, Shri Shailesh Shah, Ms. Deepali Shah, Mr. Harsh Shah, and Self (appellant) 07.06.2007 Revenue Survey No. 39/B/2 Paiki 2 2,90,000/- Same as above 6.6. Due to the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act (Sec. 63) restrictions, PEMCT could not retain ownership of agricultural land. Therefore, the land was re-transferred back to the original owners in February 2012, with the following details: IT(SS)A No.227/Ahd/2019 The DCIT vs. Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 9 Date Particulars of the Land Consideration (Rs.) Name of the Transferors 08.02.2012 Revenue Survey No. 39/B/2 Paiki 1 2,90,000/- Same as above 08.02.2012 Revenue Survey No. 39/B/2 Paiki 2 2,00,000/- Same as above 6.7. The assessee’s relatives relinquished their ownership rights over the two properties in favour of the appellant (Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel) in May 2012, without any consideration, as per the following details: Date Particulars of the Land Consideration (Rs.) Name of the Persons Relinquishing Rights 03.05.2012 Revenue Survey No. 39/B/2 Paiki 1 Nil Shri Shailesh Shah (father), Smt. Jyotsna Shah (mother), Ms. Deepali Shah (sister), Mr. Harsh Shah (brother) 03.05.2012 Revenue Survey No. 39/B/2 Paiki 2 Nil Same as above 6.8. Upon obtaining the necessary approvals under Sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the assessee re-transferred the properties to PEMCT in May 2012, with the following details: Particulars of the Land Date Stamp Duty Paid (Rs.) Declared Consideration (Rs.) Circle Rate (Rs.) IT(SS)A No.227/Ahd/2019 The DCIT vs. Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 10 Revenue Survey No. 39/B/2 Paiki 1 23.05.2012 17,47,500/- 2,90,000/- 3,56,63,265/- Revenue Survey No. 39/B/2 Paiki 2 23.05.2012 19,11,500/- 2,00,000/- 3,90,10,200/- 6.9. The Ld.AR emphasized that the entire transaction was carried out under a pre-existing arrangement to protect the rights of the Trust, and the stamp duty and other expenses were borne by PEMCT. The assessee received no independent consideration for the transfer, and the obligation to transfer arose from her role as a trustee of PEMCT. The AR further stated that the CIT(A) correctly noted that the transfer was carried out in compliance with the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Hence, it was not an independent transfer, but a transaction required to regularize the ownership of the land in favour of the Trust. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the Ld.AR and the Ld.DR, as well as the orders of the lower authorities, the judicial precedents relied upon, and the material on record. The key issues before us revolve around the addition of Rs.72,600/- under Chapter VI-A and Rs.5,38,87,550/- under Section 50C of the Act made by the Assessing Officer (AO), which were deleted by the CIT(A). We proceed to discuss each issue in light of the legal framework concerning abated/unabated assessments, the requirement for incriminating material under Section 153A of the Act, and the judicial precedents governing these matters. IT(SS)A No.227/Ahd/2019 The DCIT vs. Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 11 7.1. It is an established legal principle that assessments made under Section 153A of the Act must distinguish between abated and unabated assessments. When a search is conducted under Section 132 of the Act, the assessments for six previous years are reopened, and the AO is required to assess or reassess the total income. However, the scope of additions in these assessments differs depending on whether the assessment for a particular year is abated or unabated. If the assessment for a particular year is pending on the date of the search, it is treated as abated, and the AO can assess or reassess the total income based on any material available, whether found during the search or otherwise. If the assessment for a particular year is completed on the date of the search, it is treated as unabated. In such cases, only incriminating material found during the search can be the basis for making any additions to the income already assessed. In the present case, the assessment year under consideration is AY 2013-14, for which no any assessment or reassessment was pending and, therefore, the assessment was completed and AY 2013-14 is an unabated year. Thus, any additions made by the AO must be based on incriminating material found during the search. 7.2. The Ld.DR contended that the sale deeds for the properties in question, which were sold to Parishram Education & Medical Charitable Trust (PEMCT), were found during the search, and these deeds form part of the incriminating material justifying the additions made by the AO under Section 50C of the Act. The AR, on the other hand, argued that duly registered sale deeds cannot, by themselves, be treated as incriminating material, as they are part of regular, lawful transactions and were already disclosed in the assessee's return of income. The Ld.AR further submitted that the absence of any evidence suggesting suppression of income or understatement of sale IT(SS)A No.227/Ahd/2019 The DCIT vs. Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 12 consideration means that the sale deeds do not qualify as incriminating material. The legal position regarding what constitutes incriminating material in the context of Section 153A of the Act is well established by the courts. For an addition to be made in an unabated assessment year, the material relied upon by the AO must be incriminating in nature, implying that it must unearth or reveal undisclosed income or contradict the facts disclosed by the assessee in the original return. Incriminating material is typically material found during a search that directly points to the concealment of income, such as undisclosed assets, unaccounted cash, or evidence of fraudulent transactions. 7.3. The judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee provide clarity on this issue. In the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if they are based on incriminating material found during the search, which relates to undisclosed income or assets. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Saumya Construction (2017) 387 ITR 529 (Guj) observed that mere examination of already disclosed documents, such as registered sale deeds, which are part of the assessee’s regular books of accounts, cannot be considered incriminating material unless they reveal some undisclosed income or misrepresentation. Similarly, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2015) 380 ITR 573 (Del) reaffirmed that in unabated assessment years, only those additions can be sustained that are based on incriminating material found during the search. IT(SS)A No.227/Ahd/2019 The DCIT vs. Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 13 7.4. In the context of the present case, for the sale deeds to qualify as incriminating material, they must contain information that points to undisclosed income or suppression of facts by the assessee. If the sale deeds merely reflect the disclosed transactions that are duly registered and accounted for in the books of the assessee, they cannot be treated as incriminating. While the sale deeds were indeed found during the search, we note that the sale deeds are duly registered documents that record the transaction between the assessee and PEMCT. These transactions were not concealed, and the details of the sale were part of the assessee’s books. There is no evidence or indication in the sale deeds or elsewhere suggesting that the assessee understated the sale consideration or attempted to evade taxes. The stamp duty valuation reflects the jantri rate applicable to the property, which by law is used for determining the stamp duty, but it does not automatically imply that the sale consideration is suppressed. The mere fact that Section 50C of the Act deems the stamp duty value as the sale consideration for capital gains purposes does not render the sale deeds incriminating material. The CIT(A) has rightly observed that Section 50C of the Act is a deeming provision that applies where the declared consideration is lower than the stamp duty value, but this alone does not make the transaction suspicious or fraudulent. Therefore, we conclude that duly registered sale deeds, which were part of the regular course of transactions and disclosed in the assessee’s returns, cannot be treated as incriminating material in the absence of any evidence pointing to undisclosed income or intent to evade taxes. 7.5. We find that the addition of Rs.72,600/- under Chapter VI-A was made by the AO based solely on an examination of the computation of income without any incriminating material found during the search. As the IT(SS)A No.227/Ahd/2019 The DCIT vs. Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 14 Assessment Year 2013-14 was unabated, and the addition was not supported by any incriminating material, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition. On merit, the AO failed to demonstrate that the deduction was wrongly claimed by the assessee. Therefore, this ground of appeal by the Revenue fails. 7.6. The addition under Section 50C of the Act was based on the difference between the stamp duty valuation and the declared sale consideration in the duly registered sale deeds. The Ld.DR's contention that these sale deeds constituted incriminating material is not tenable. The AR rightly argued that duly registered deeds, which were part of the assessee’s regular disclosed transactions, cannot be treated as incriminating material. On merit, the CIT(A) has provided detailed reasons why the invocation of Section 50C of the Act was inappropriate in this case, as the transactions were part of a pre- existing arrangement with the Trust and the assessee acted in her role as a trustee. We uphold the CIT(A)’s decision to delete the addition of Rs.5,38,87,550/-. 7.7. In light of the above, we uphold the CIT(A)'s order in its entirety. Thus, the grounds of appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17th October, 2024 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 17/10/2024 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS IT(SS)A No.227/Ahd/2019 The DCIT vs. Smt. Mrunaliben Jigar Patel Asst. Year : 2013-14 15 आदेश की #ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ% / The Appellant 2. #&थ% / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु' / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु' ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड\u0010 फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स&ािपत #ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation (word processed by Hon’ble AM in his laptop) : 15.10.2024 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member. : 15.10.2024 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 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. : 17.10.24 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 17.10.24 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 : "