M/s. Triloknath Corporation, Valsad v. The Income tax Officer, Ward-4,, Valsad

ITA 412/AHD/2011 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 41220514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAEFT3551F
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 412/AHD/2011
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Triloknath Corporation, Valsad
Respondent The Income tax Officer, Ward-4,, Valsad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 15-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 15-07-2011
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 14-02-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.412 & 413 / AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 & 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY) M/S. TRILOKNATH CORPORATION C/O GANESH HALL NANI MEHETWAD VALSAD -396001 VS. ITO WARD 4 VALSAD PAN/GIR NO. : AAEFT3551F (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI RUJESH UPADHYAY AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.K. MEENA SR. DR O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA AM:- BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) VALSAD BOTH D ATED 10.11.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2006-07. BOTH THESE A PPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN I.T.A. NO. 412/AHD/2011. THE ONLY GROUN D RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS YEAR IS AS UNDER:- THE ITO WARD 4 VALSAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS TO LEVY PENALTY OF RS.10 884/- ON DISALLOWANCE OF GENERAL E XPENSES MAINTENANCE EXPENSES SALARY EXPENSES AND TRAVELING EXPENSES. LD. CIT(A) VALSAD HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW IN DIRECTING TH E A.O. TO LEVY 50% OF THE SAID PENALTY. I.T.A.NO. 412 413 /AHD/2011 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZ ED U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON TOTAL IN COME OF RS.1 10 775/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.81 166/-. THE AD DITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.29 619/- IS ON ACCOUNT OF 20% DISALLOWANCE OU T OF VARIOUS EXPENSES SUCH AS GENERAL EXPENSES OF RS.13 525/- MAINTENANC E EXPENSES RS.40 580/- SALARY EXPENSES OF RS. 86 400/- AND TRAVELING EXPEN SES OF RS.7 590/- TOTALING RS.1 48 095/- 20% OF WHICH COMES TO RS.29 619/-. THE A.O. IMPOSED PENALTY ON THE DISALLOWANCE BY RELYING UPON THE JUD GEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PR OCESSORS & OTHERS 306 ITR 277 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT MENS REA IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. BEING A GGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). BE FORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN QUANTUM APPEAL T HE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 10% AS AGAINST DI SALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. @ 20% OF THE EXPENSES. LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRM ED THE PENALTY TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. FO R THIS REASON THAT 50% OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. HAS BEEN DELETED BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEA L BEFORE US FOR THE PENALTY PARTLY CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A). 4. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. BEFORE US THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON ESTIMATE AND AD-HOC BASIS AND THE SAME WAS REDUCED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE EXTENT OF 10% AS AGA INST DISALLOWANCE OF 20% BY THE A.O. AND HENCE FOR THIS ESTIMATED AND AD-HO C DISALLOWANCE PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. AS AGAINST THIS THE LD. D.R. OF T HE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. I.T.A.NO. 412 413 /AHD/2011 3 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE ESTIMATED AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE ON THIS BASIS THAT PR OPER DETAILS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. IT IS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS OR DER IN THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTRICTED THE DI SALLOWANCE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF THE EXPENSES AS AGAINST 20% DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. THE COPY OF THE TRIB UNAL ORDER IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS IN I.T.A. NO. 3613 3514 & 3615/2007 HA S BEEN MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE US. IN THE SAID ORDER IT IS HELD BY THE TR IBUNAL THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES IS EXCESSIVE AND IT WAS DIRECTED THAT THE SAME BE REDUCED TO 10%. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT MERE AD-HOC AND ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE FOR WANT OF DETAILS IS NOT S UFFICIENT TO LEVY PENALTY AND HENCE WE FEEL THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE PRESENT CASE THE PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA TEXTILES (SUPRA) MENS REA IS NOT ESSENTIAL FOR LEVY OF PENALTY BUT EVEN THEN IT HAS TO BE SEEN THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT. IN OUR OPINION MERE AD HOC DISALLOWA NCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH CONCEALMENT. HENCE PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE THEREFORE DELETE THE SAME. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS ALLOWED. 5. NOW WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006- 07 IN I.T.A.NO. 413/AHD/2011. THE ONLY GROUND RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THAT YEAR IS AS UNDER: THE ITO WARD 4 VALSAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS TO LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.4 847/- FOR HIS ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS.14 400/- BEING 8% OF GROSS RECEIPTS U/S 44AD OF THE ACT. LD. CIT(A ) VALSAD ALSO ERRED IN LAW TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE A.O. I.T.A.NO. 412 413 /AHD/2011 4 7. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE NOTED BY LD. CIT (A) IN PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED U/S. 14 3(3) OF THE ACT ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.14 4007- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. NIL A RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSU ED U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 139 (4) OF THE ACT HENCE A NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 04.11.08. THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED TO TREAT THE R ETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 14.07.08 AS A RETURN OF INCOME IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS EN GAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION HOWEVER HAS DECLARED NIL INCOME ON RECEIPTS OF RS.1 80 001/-. THE VERIFICATION REVEALE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER GOT HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED WITHIN THE MEA NING OF SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT NOR HAS DECLARED INCOME U/S. 44AD O F THE ACT AS IT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION. THEREF ORE ASSESSEE'S TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.14 400/- AS PER PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT AND PENAL PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 274 OF THE ACT ON 29.12.08 FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON 29.12.08 THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF JUSTICE THE AO AFFORDED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY VIDE LETTER DATED 24.02.09 WHICH WAS SE RVED ON TO THE APPELLANT ON 25.02.09. THE APPELLANT AGAIN FAILED T O COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE. THE AO RELYING ON THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA TE XTILE PROCESSORS & OTHERS THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT (2008 219 CTR ( SC) 6L7 : (2008) 306 ITR 277 : (2008)14 DTR 114) HAD IMPOSED PENALTY U/S. 271(1X0) OF RS.4 847/- WORKED OUT AT 100% OF THE TA X SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE ME W AS GENERAL IN NATURE. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS AND NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT IN THE PRES ENT CASE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. AS PER THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 44AD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND HENCE FOR SUCH AN ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMING PROVISION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN SUPPORT I.T.A.NO. 412 413 /AHD/2011 5 OF THIS CONTENTION RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDG EMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS RENDERED IN THE CASE OF S V KALYANA M VS ITO 327 ITR 477 (MAD.) ONE MORE CONTENTION WAS RAISED BY THE LD. A .R. THAT EVEN IF THE INCOME IS ASSESSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD TO THE EXTENT OF 8% OF RECEIPT DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND IF SUCH DEDUC TION IS ALLOWED THERE WILL BE NO TAXABLE INCOME AND HENCE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE A.O. AT RS.14 400/- AS AGAINST NIL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FILED. AT THIS JUNCTURE A QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE BENCH AS TO WHE THER THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ANY PAYMENT OF INTEREST OR REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNER AND WHETHER ANY SUCH PAYMENT IS AUTHORIZED BY THE PARTNERSHIP DEED OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT HE IS NOT AWARE ABOU T THESE FACTUAL ASPECTS. HE SIMPLY SUBMITTED THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE CIT(A) IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THIS CONTENTION WAS RAISED BUT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT. ONE MORE Q UERY WAS RAISED BY THE BENCH AS TO WHETHER SUCH DETAILS SUCH AS ACTUAL PAY MENT OF INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS OR ITS ALLOWABILITY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF PARTNERSHIP DEED WERE MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT AWARE ABOUT THIS ASPECT AL SO. BEFORE US ALSO NO SUCH DETAIL OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ACTUAL PAYMENT OF INTEREST OR REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS OR WHETHER ANY SUCH PAYMENT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE PARTNERSHIP DEED. 10. LD. D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ASSESSEE IS I.T.A.NO. 412 413 /AHD/2011 6 ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AND T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ESTIMATED @ 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPT OF RS.1 80 0 01/- WHICH COMES TO RS.14 400/-. NOW WE EXAMINE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 44AD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 44AD IN THE CASES SPECIFIED UNDER THIS SECTION IF THE TURNOVER OR GR OSS RECEIPT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED RS.40 LACS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ASSESSED AT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 8% OF THE TOTAL TURN OVER OR GROSS RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE OR IF THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED MORE INCOME THEN SUCH INCOME AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER SUB-SECTION ( 5) OF THIS SECTION IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THAT HIS INCOME IS LESS TH AN 8% OF THE RECEIPT BUT IN THAT SITUATION THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2 ) OF SECTION 44AA AND GET THEM AUDITED AND FURNISH A REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT AS REQUIRED U/S 44AB. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THIS QUERY WAS ALSO RAISED BY T HE BENCH AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT ITS ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S 44AB AND IN REPLY IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT ALTHOUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME WERE NOT GOT AUDITED. HENCE IT IS APPARENT THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE HAS TO BE ASSESSED TO THE EXTENT OF 8% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPT A S HAS BEEN DONE BY THE A.O. AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM THAT ITS INCOME WAS B ELOW THIS AMOUNT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GOT ITS ACCOUNTS AUDITED AND H AS NOT FURNISHED A REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT AS REQUIRED U/S 44AB. REGARDING THIS CL AIM THAT DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS U/S 40(B) WE FIND THAT THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE BECAUSE NEIT HER THIS FACT IS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT ANY SUCH PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE NOR THIS FACT IS MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE US THAT ANY SUCH PAYMENT IS AUTHOR IZED BY THE PARTNERSHIP DEED. I.T.A.NO. 412 413 /AHD/2011 7 12. NOW WE COME TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE JUDGME NT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS RENDERED IN THE CASE OF S. V. KALYA NAM (SUPRA) ON WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LD. A.R. WE FIND THAT IN THAT CASE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND WITH REGARD TO SUCH AN ADDITION PENALTY WAS ALSO IMPOSED. UNDER THES E FACTS IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS THAT SECTION 69 DEALS WITH DEEMING PROVISION AND THE SAME CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNO T PRESUME THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT. IT IS ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INCOME AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE TAKEN THAT THER E WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT MERE REJECTION OF EX PLANATION WOULD NOT BE A GROUND FOR LEVYING PENALTY. IN THE PRESENT CASE T HE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE IN THE PRESENT CASE SECTION INVOKED BY THE A.O. IS SECTION 44AD AND NOT SECTION 69. SECTION 44AD IS UNDER THE HEADING SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR COMPUTING PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OF CIVIL CO NSTRUCTION ETC. WHEREAS SECTION 69 IS UNDER THE HEADING UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENTS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION SECTION 69 CAN BE INVOKED BY TH E A.O. ONLY IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO ADD SUCH INCOME IN THE COMPUTATION SUO MOTO. BU T AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DECLAR E INCOME IN THE COMPUTATION TO THE EXTENT OF 8% OF GROSS RECEIPTS I N THOSE CASES WHERE THAT SECTION IS APPLICABLE AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FULFI LLING THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 44AD I.E. AUDIT U/S 44AB ETC. IF IT IS NOT DONE BY THE ASSESSEE THEN THE A.O. CAN DO SO. IN THE PRES ENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GOT ITS ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S 44AB & THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 44AD ARE APPLICABLE TO IT BECAUSE IT IS IN THE PRESCRIBED BU SINESS HAVING TURNOVER OF LESS THAN RS.40 LACS. HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS REQU IRED TO DISCLOSE INCOME SUO MOTO TO THE EXTENT OF 8% OF GROSS RECEIPT. SIN CE IT WAS NOT DONE IT I.T.A.NO. 412 413 /AHD/2011 8 AMOUNTS TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION AND THE DEEMING OF INCOME IS AS PER THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DECLARE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF 8% OF GROSS RECEIPT AND NOT FOR THIS REASON THAT THE A.O. IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE A SSESSEE AS IN THE CASE OF ADDITION U/S 69. HENCE THIS JUDGEMENT IS OF NO HE LP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE PENALTY. 13. IN THE RESULT THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. 14. IN THE COMBINED RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS ALLOWED BUT APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07 IS DISMISSED. 15. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JULY 2011. SD./- SD./- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED : 29 TH JULY 2011 SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD 6. THE GUARD FILE I.T.A.NO. 412 413 /AHD/2011 9 1. DATE OF DICTATION 21/7 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 25/7 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 26/7 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 29/7 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 29/7 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 01/08/11 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. ..