Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt.Ltd., ... vs Assessee on 4 January, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD ''B" BENCH - AHMEDABAD
Before S/Shri Rajpal Yadav, JM, & Manish Borad, AM.
ITA No.1942/Ahd/2011
Asst. Year: 2007-08
Mahavir Inductoment Pvt. Ltd., 7604, vs ASST. CIT, (OSD)-1, Range-4,
GIDC, Phase-IV, Vatva, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.
Appellant Respondent
PAN AABCM 8848G
AND
ITA No.2191/Ahd/2011
Asst. Year: 2007-08
Asstt. CIT, (OSD)-1, Range-4, vs Mahavir Inductoment Pvt. Ltd.,
Ahmedabad 7604, GIDC, Phase-IV, Vatva,
Ahmedabad.
Appellant Respondent
PAN AABCM 8848G
Assessee by Shri Asheembhai L. Thakkar, AR
Respondent by Shri Dipak Sutaria, Sr.DR
Date of hearing: 21/10/2015
Date of pronouncement: 04/01/2016
ORDER
PER Manish Borad, Accountant Member.
These two cross appeals - one by assessee and the other by Revenue are directed against order of CIT(A)-VIII, Ahmedabad, dated 8.6.2011 in appeal No.CIT(A)-VIII/ACR.4/732/09-10.
ITA No. 1942 & 2191/Ahd/2011 2Asst. Year 2007-08 Assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) vide order dated 17/12/2009 for Asst. Year 2007-08.
2. First we take up assessee's appeal in ITA No.1942/Ahd/2011 for Assessment Year 2007-08. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal :-
1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance out of interest expenses @ 3% u/s 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act., 1961.
2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company which is engaged in the business of ship breaking filed its return of income for Asst. Year 2007-08 on 29.10.2007 declaring total income at Rs.47,11,510/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making addition of Rs.14,02,522/- on account of excess interest claimed to be paid to a party covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act and addition of Rs.85,21,606/-
on account of deemed dividend income and accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.1,46,35,638/-.
4. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the addition made u/s 40A(2)(b) and deleted the addition made on account of deemed dividend. Assessee is in appeal before ITA No. 1942 & 2191/Ahd/2011 3 Asst. Year 2007-08 the Tribunal against the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance out of interest expenses @ 3% u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act.
5. The ld. AR submitted that during the year regular loans and advances were received and paid to Mr. K. K. Bansal who is one of the directors of the company having substantial holding in the company and assessee has paid interest to Mr. K. K. Bansal of Rs.17,55,132/- calculated @ 15%. During the year assessee has also given loan to Mahavir rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. which is a sister concern of the assessee company and Mr. K. K. Bansal is a major share holder in Mahavir Rolling Mills P. Ltd. and interest @ 12% has been charged from Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Due to this very reason that assessee is paying interest 15% to its director and charging 12% interest from a sister concern having the same director as well as major share holder, thereby charging excess interest @ 3% and therefore made disallowance of excess interest paid at Rs.14,02,522/-.
6. The ld. AR further submitted that Assessing Officer has not gone through the complete facts of the issue specifically the flow of transactions between the assessee and Mr. K. K. Bansal and the assessee and Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Assessing Officer should have appreciated the facts that in the case of K. K. Bansal there was credit balance of Rs.3,34,72,237/- and during the year there have been regular transactions of funds outflow and inflow and at the end of the year the remaining credit balance in a/c of K. K. Bansal was Rs.48,31,275/-; which means that the unsecured loan taken has substantially reduced. Similarly, in case of transaction between the ITA No. 1942 & 2191/Ahd/2011 4 Asst. Year 2007-08 assessee and Mahavir Rolling Mills there was no opening balance and regular transactions of fund outflow and inflow in between the two companies have taken place and over all during the year total of credit entries is Rs.6,69,37,343/- and total of debit entries excluding interest paid is Rs.65,05,700/- and the account has been squared up at the end of the year. These regular transactions between the assessee company and with its director and sister concern shows that there is no basic intention to claim excess interest and the transactions have been entered in a regular course of business as required to be made between the sister concern.
7. Ld. AR also submitted that both Mr. K. K. Bansal and Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. are regularly assessed to income-tax and are paying taxes at the maximum marginal rate and this further strengthen the contentions that assessee's object was not to evade any tax by such arrangement. To further strengthen his argument ld. AR has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal CIT-2 vs. Gujarat Gas Financial Services Ltd. (2015 60 taxmann.com 483 (Gujarat) (copy of decision is placed on record).
8. The ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities.
9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The basic reason due to which Assessing Officer went ahead to make addition of Rs.14,02,522/- on account of interest relating to the parties was that assessee paid interest @ 15% to its ITA No. 1942 & 2191/Ahd/2011 5 Asst. Year 2007-08 director and major share holder Mr. K. K. Bansal and charged interest @ 12% on the loans to its sister concern Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. of which Mr. K. K. Bansal was a major share holder and Assessing Officer took a view that assessee company has intentionally moved the funds received from Mr. K. K. Bansal by paying 15% interest and put it to Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and charged 12% interest and thereby claimed excess interest by 3% and made addition of this excess 3% interest being made to a relative under the provisions of sec.40A(2)(b) of the Act and made addition of Rs.14,02,522/-.
10. However, considering the submissions of ld. AR and examining the records as well as ledger a/c of Mr. K. K. Bansal and Mahavir Rolling Mills P. Ltd. in the books of account of assessee, we find sufficient force in the submissions of ld. AR. In regard to the interest payment to Mr. K. K. Bansal, we observe that the opening credit balance in the a/c of K. K. Bansal stood at Rs.3,34,72,237.66 and after regular outflow and inflow of funds at the end of the year the credit balance has reduced to Rs.48,31,275/-. This means that the funds flowed in and out in the a/c regularly for the business expediency and had there been any intention to claim higher interest then the credit balance of K. K. Bansal would not have reduced to this extent. Similarly, while going through the ledger a/c of Mahavir Rolling Mills where there is no opening balance and there have been regular transactions of funds received and paid (almost every month) and coming to the end of the year the a/c has been squared up and this shows that there were regular flow of funds for business ITA No. 1942 & 2191/Ahd/2011 6 Asst. Year 2007-08 expediency with its sister concern. In the case of any assessee having sister concern and common director such type of funds movement are quite natural and are made for the smooth running of the business unless and until some specific intention comes across for any tax evasion which is not the case of the assessee because from the perusal of income-tax returns & acknowledgement of K. K. Bansal and Mahavir Rolling Mills for Asst. Year 2007-08 we find that both of them are assessed to maximum marginal rate and there seems to be no intention of the assessee to evade taxes. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Gujarat Gas financial Services Ltd. (supra) supports the view discussed above wherein it has been held that in a situation when the Assessing Officer found that assessee was using some space of the parent company and, therefore, initiated proceedings u/s 40A(2)(b) and deducted and remitted rent of space from services charges it was observed that as assessee company and parent company both were taxed at marginal rate and therefore it cannot be said that service charges paid to parent company are unreasonable so as to evade tax and, therefore Revenue could not point out that assessee evaded payment of tax and it was held that invocation of section 40A(2)(b) was not valid.
11. We find that applying the facts of the issue in appeal before us to the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court referred above as well as our observations in relation transactions entered into by the assessee company with its director, K.K. Bansal and its sister concern Mahavir Rolling Mills were normal business transactions and ITA No. 1942 & 2191/Ahd/2011 7 Asst. Year 2007-08 did not reflect any intention of the assessee to will-fully evade tax by paying higher rate of interest and therefore, we delete the addition made by Assessing Officer and allow the ground of appeal of assessee.
12. Ground No.2 is of general nature, which requires no adjudication.
13. Now we take up cross appeal of Revenue in ITA ITA No.2191/Ahd/2011 for Asst. Year 2007-08 wherein following grounds have been taken up :-
1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.85,21,606/- on account of deemed dividend u/s.
2(22)(e) without appreciating the fact that the assessing officer had established that the payment made by Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. by way of advances is covered under the provisions of section 2(22)(e).
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.
3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent.
14. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is relating to deletion of addition of Rs.85,21,606/- on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act by ld. CIT(A).
ITA No. 1942 & 2191/Ahd/2011 8Asst. Year 2007-08
15. Briefly stated facts are that during the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed that during the year under appeal the assessee company received advance from Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.6,69,37,343/- and the maximum outstanding balance was of Rs.3,21,53,500/- and Mr. K. K. Bansal is a common share holder in both the companies having substantial interest to the extent of 99.99% share holding in Mahavir Rolling Mills and 48.17 % share holding in assessee company i.e. Mahavir Inductoment Pvt. Ltd. and Mahavir Rolling Mills has accumulated profit of Rs.3,28,34,197/- and Assessing Officer went ahead to make addition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) at Rs. 85,21,606/- in the hands of assessee company by calculating the increase in accumulated profits of Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. in comparison to last year. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who deleted the addition by relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for Asst. Year 2005-06 in ITA No.2349/Ahd/2008 vide order dated 10/12/2010.
16. Aggrieved the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
17. Ld. DR relied on the order of Assessing Officer whereas the ld. AR supported the order of CIT(A).
18. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. From going through the facts of the case, we find that Mr. K. K. Bansal is a common substantial share holder in assessee company as well as Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. However, the assessee company is not a share holder of Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt.
ITA No. 1942 & 2191/Ahd/2011 9Asst. Year 2007-08 Ltd. In the assessment order Assessing Officer has referred to the advance received from Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. at Rs.6,69,37,343/- and has framed the assessment order by making addition of Rs. 85,21,606/- by taxing it in the hands of the assessee as a deemed dividend without appreciating the fact that during the year assessee company has not received the advances only but has regularly given funds to Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and as discussed in the appeal of assessee that these transactions are being carried out regularly for business expediency. Further as referred by ld. AR that this issue of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) has been dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for Asst. Year 2005-06 wherein it has been decided in favour of assessee by observing as under :-
"14. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer observed that M/s. MIPL is a company in which the public is not substantially interest and one of the Director, Shri K.K Bansal holds more than 20% of share both in the assessee- company and M/s MRPL, the AO further observed that as per the books of account, M/s. MRPL has advanced huge sum to M/s MRPL i.e. the assessee-company and MIPL have shown reserves and surplus at Rs.1,01,54,414/-. The AO therefore observed that the loans and advances made by MIPL to MRML is liable to taxed as deemed dividend. In response to the show cause notice asking the assessee to explain why the amount should not be treated as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e), the assessee filed written submissions dated 22-12-2007 which had been reproduced by the AO at para-7.3 in assessment order. It was explained to the AO in the course of assessment proceedings that the assessee-company is not holding a single share in MRML and the aforesaid fact can also be ascertained from the chart which has been produced by the A.O in para-7.1 of the assessment order. The AO without appreciating the relevant facts in proper perspective and the detailed submissions furnished by the assessee and made addition of Rs.1,01,54,414/-. We find from the assessment order that he has not dealt with the issue of the assessee that the assessee-company is not holding even a single share of MIPL and now before us the assessee has demonstrated that no shareholding is held by the assessee- company of MIPL. But even otherwise, this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. (2009) 118 ITD 1 (Mum)(SB), wherein the Hon'ble Special Bench has held as under:-ITA No. 1942 & 2191/Ahd/2011 10
Asst. Year 2007-08 "33. We may also touch upon certain other aspects of the issue n the light of the submissions made before us. The Tribunal in the case of Nikko Technologies (supra), while holding that the payment made by a company even to a non-shareholder can be brought to tax in the hands of the non-shareholder has made the following observations. "Section 2(22)(e) only specifies the circumstances under which a payment by way of loan/advance is to be treated as deemed dividend. Once it is determined that any payment by way of loan/advance falls within the ambit of section 2(22)(e), then, it has to be treated as dividend even though such payment in the ordinary circumstances may not be considered as dividend. At this point of time, the role of section 2(22)(e) ends. It nowhere provides as to who is to be taxed in inspect of such income. It is to be borne in mind that the tax can only be assessed in the hands of right person as held by the apex court in the case of ITO v.
Ch. Atchalah (1996) 218 ITR 239, at pages 243-244. In order to find out the right person, one has to examine the charging provisions of the Act. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act are the charging provisions."
Thereafter, the Tribunal has referred to the provisions of section 5(1) of the Act and has concluded that income accrues to the person who is the recipient of the payment from the company. The Tribunal has thereafter referred to Circular No.495 dated September 22, 1987, of the Central Board of Direct Taxes wherein it has been opined that deemed dividend would be taxed in the hands of a concern (non- shareholder) also if the conditions mentioned in the section are satisfied.
34. We are of the view that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) do not spell out as to whether the income has to be taxed din the hands of the share-holder or the concern (non-shareholder). The provisions are ambiguous. IT is therefore necessary to examine the intention behind enacting the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
35. The intention behind enacting the provisions of section 2(22)(e) is that closely held companies (i.e. companies in which public are not substantially interested), which are controlled by a group of members, even though the company has accumulated profits would not distribute such profit as dividend because if so distributed the dividend income would become taxable in the hands of the shareholders. Instead of distributing accumulated profits as dividend, companies distribute them as loan or advances to shareholder or to concern in which such shareholders have substantial interest or make any payment on behalf of or for the individual benefit of such shareholder. In such an event, by the deeming provisions such payment by the company is treated as dividend. The intention behind the provisions of section 2(22)(e) is to tax dividend in the hands of shareholder. The deeming provisions as it applies to the case of loans or advances by a company to a concern in which its shareholder has substantial interest, is based on the resumption that the loan or advances would ultimately be made available to the shareholders of the company giving the loan or advance. The intention of the Legislature is therefore to tax dividend only in the hands of the shareholder and not in the hands of the concern.
ITA No. 1942 & 2191/Ahd/2011 11Asst. Year 2007-08
36. The basis of bringing in the amendment to section 2(22)(e) of the Act by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1998, is to ensure that persons who control the affairs of a company as well as that of a firm can have the payment made to a concern from the company and the person who can control the affairs of the concern can draw the same from the concern instead of the company directly making payment to the shareholder as dividend. The source of power to control the affairs of the company and the concern is the basis on which these provisions have been made. It is therefore proper to construe those provisions as contemplating a charge to tax in the hands of the shareholder and not in the hands of a non- shareholder viz., concern. A loan or advance received by a concern is not in the nature of income. In other words there is a deemed accrual of income even under section 5(1)(b) in the hands of the shareholder only and not in the hands of the payee, viz., non shareholder (concern). Section 5(1)(a) contemplates that the receipt or deemed receipt should be in the nature of income. Therefore, the deeming fiction can be applied only in the hands of the shareholder and not the non shareholder, viz., the concern.
37. The definition of dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act is an inclusive definition. Such inclusive definition enlarges the meaning of the term "dividend" according to its ordinary and natural meaning to include even a loan or advance. Any loan or advance cannot be dividend according to its ordinary and natural meaning. The ordinary and natural meaning of the term dividend would be a share in profits to an investor in the share capital of a limited company. To the extent the meaning of the word "dividend" is extended to loans and advances to a shareholder or to a concern in which a shareholder is substantially interested deeming them as dividend in the hands of a shareholder the ordinary and natural meaning of the word "dividend" is altered. To this extent the definition of the term "dividend" can be said to operate. If the definition of "dividend" is extended to a loan or advance to a non- shareholder the ordinary and natural meaning of the word dividend is taken away. In the light of the intention behind the provisions of section 2(22)(e) and in the absence of indication in section 2 (22)(e) to extended the legal fiction to a case of loan or advance to a non-shareholder also, we are of the view that loan or advance to a non-shareholder cannot be taxed as deemed dividend in the hands of a non- shareholder.
38. The basic characteristic of dividend as held by the apex court in the case of Kantilal Manilal v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 275 is a share of profits of the company given to its shareholders. Further, section 206 of the Companies Act, 1956, prohibits payment of dividend to any person other than the registered shareholder. If one were to break up the natural meaning the following components emerge (a) dividend is a share of profits of the company (b) paid to its shareholders. Section 2(22) of the Act artificially extends the scope of dividend from being more than only a distribution of profits to cover certain other types disbursements such as loans paid, etc. (the first ingredient mentioned above). It does not however alter the second component of its natural meaning, viz., paid to its shareholder. In other words all that section 2(22) seeks to do is to expand the various types payments that may be regarded as dividend. The apex court while considering what can come within the artificial definition of dividend under section 2(22) in the case of CIT v. Nalin Behari Lall ITA No. 1942 & 2191/Ahd/2011 12 Asst. Year 2007-08 Singha [1969] 74 ITR 849 (SC) described the scope of the definition of dividend thus (page 851 of 74 ITR):
"The definition is, it is true, an inclusive definition and a receipt by a shareholder which does not fall within the definition may possibly be regarded as dividend within the meaning of the Act unless the context negatives that view."
The contention of the Departmental representative that the provisions of section 8(a) of the Act creates a fiction by which even payments to non shareholders can be construed as dividend cannot be accepted. Those provisions merely fix the year in which dividend has to be taxed. It is therefore clear that the shareholder alone can, if at all, be subjected to tax for having earned dividend.
39. In the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nikko Technologies Ltd. (supra) reliance has been placed on Circular No.495, dated September 22,1987 ([1987] 1568 ITR (St.) 87), which states as follows (page 91):
"Further, deemed dividend would be taxed in the hands of a concern where all the following conditions are satisfied...."
We are of the view that circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes to the extent that they do not tone down the rigor of the provisions of the Act in the sense to the extent they are not benevolent are not binding.
40. Apart from the above, it is also noticed that section 2(22)(e)(iii) provides relief to a shareholder as follows:
"Dividend does not include,
(i) & (ii) ... ... ...
(iii) any dividend paid by accompany which is set off by the company against the whole or any part of any sum previously paid by it and treated as a dividend within the meaning of sub-clause (e) to the extent to which it is so set off."
In the event of the payment of loan or advance by a company to a concern being treated as dividend and taxed in the hands of the concern then, the benefit of set off cannot be allowed to the concern, because the concern can never receive dividend from the company which is only paid to the shareholder, who has substantial interest in the concern. The above provisions also therefore contemplate deemed dividend being taxed in the hands of a shareholder only. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the law laid down in the case of Nikko Technologies Ltd. (supra) is not correct. We, therefore, hold that deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be assessed only in the hands of a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of any other person.
ITA No. 1942 & 2191/Ahd/2011 13Asst. Year 2007-08
41. In the light of the above discussion, the questions referred to the Special Bench are answered as follows:
On the first question: Deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of a person who is a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of a person other than a shareholder.
On the second question: The expression shareholder referred to in section 2(22)(e) refers to both a registered shareholder and beneficial shareholder. If a person is a registered shareholder but not the beneficial shareholder then the provisions of section 2(22)(e) will not apply.
42. Similarly if a person is a beneficial shareholder but not a registered shareholder then also the provisions of section 2(22)(e) will not apply. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit inn this appeal by the Revenue and the same is, therefore, dismissed.."
15. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Hotel Hilltop (2009) 313 ITR 116 (Raj) wherein it is held that in order to attract the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act the following four conditions are that since qua non : (a) the assessee should be a shareholder of the company; (b) the company should be a closely held company in which the public are not substantially interested; (c) there must be payment by way of advance or loan to a shareholder or any payment by the company on behalf of or for the individual benefit of the shareholder and (d) there must be sufficient accumulated profits in the hands of the company up to the date of such payment.
16. We find from the above case law of Mumbai Special Bench of this ITAT, wherein it is categorically held that the deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of a person who is a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of a person other than a shareholder. Accordingly, this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, hence, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act made by Assessing Officer. This issue of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed."
We find that issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue in the present case also. Respectfully, following the decision of this Tribunal in assessee's sister concern in the case of Mahavir Rolling Mills Ltd. (supra) we uphold the order of CIT(A) and this issue of Revenue's appeal is dismissed."
As the facts discussed and decided by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case are similar to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that as the assessee company is not a ITA No. 1942 & 2191/Ahd/2011 14 Asst. Year 2007-08 share holder in Mahavir Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., therefore, no addition could be made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act, as deemed dividend and accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A). We uphold the same. The ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
19. Other grounds are of general nature, which need no adjudication.
20. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
21. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 04/01/2016
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajpal Yadav) (Manish Borad)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated 04/01/2016
Mahata/-
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT concerned
4. The CIT(A) concerned
5. The DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. Guard File
BY ORDER
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Ahmedabad
ITA No. 1942 & 2191/Ahd/2011 15
Asst. Year 2007-08
1. Date of dictation: 11/12/2015
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member: 18/12/2015 other Member:
3. Date on which 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 the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S.:
6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk: 04/01/2016
7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk:
8. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order:
9. Date of Despatch of the Order: