The ITO, Ward-2, Bharuch V. Shri Baldev T.Hariyani, Bharuch

ITA 1011/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60465 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P TALATI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 40A(3); 133A; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI D. K. TYAGI, JM AND A. MOHAN ALANKAMON Y, AM) ITA NO.1011/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, BHARUCH VS SHRI BALDEV T. HARIYANI, PROP. GANESH TRADERS, PURJA ROAD, BHARUCH PA NO. AALPH 1014 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI S. P. TALATI, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI MUKUND BAKSHI, AR DATE OF HEARING: 24-05-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31-05-2012 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A )-VI, BARODA IN APPEAL NO. CAB-VI/452/08-09 DATED 21-12-2009, FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2006-7. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS IN ITS APPE AL WHEREIN GROUND NO.4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. GROUNDS NO.1, 2 AND 3 OF THE APPEAL ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,14,6 23/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES MADE AND THE PEAK INVESTMENT THEREIN, BASED ON THE DISCLOSURE MADE AS PER ITA NO.1011/AHD/2010 (AY: 2006-07) ITO WARD -2, BHARUCH VS SHRI BALDEV T. HARIYANI 2 IMPOUNDED MATERIAL BEING ANNEXURE A/11 AND A/12 DUR ING SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,82,8 77/- U/S. 40A(3) ON ACCOUNT OF CASU PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASES AS RECORDED IN ANNEXURE A/11 AND A/12. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,23,45 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED NET PROFIT IN RESPECT OF SAL E OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF TRADING IN EDIBLE OIL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON 22-12-2006 SUBSEQUENT TO THE SURVEY ACTI ON CONDUCTED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S 133A OF THE IT ACT ON 10-0 2-2006. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME OF RS.1,27,470/- IN HIS RE TURN, HOWEVER DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE FOLLOWING DISCLOSURE:- 01. CASH DIFFERENCE (PHYSICAL & BOOKS) RS. 2 ,10,463/- 02. EXCESS PROFIT (ON UNDISCLOSED TRADING) RS . 1,23,450/- 03. PEAK INVESTMENT(ON UNDISCLOSED TRADING RS. 19,14,623/- 04. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) RS.14,82,877/- ----------------------- TOTAL RS. 37,31,413/- ============= 4. THE LEARNED AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE AS SESSEE HAD MADE DISCLOSURE OF RS.37,31,413/- AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INC OME DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE TO RETRACT ED THE SAME ON A LATER DATE WITHOUT FURNISHING ANY COGENT REASONS. F URTHER, THE LEARNED AO RELYING ON THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE REVENUE AT T HE TIME OF SURVEY, ITA NO.1011/AHD/2010 (AY: 2006-07) ITO WARD -2, BHARUCH VS SHRI BALDEV T. HARIYANI 3 MADE ADDITIONS FOR (I) PEAK INVESTMENT FOR UNACCOUN TED PURCHASES OF RS.19,14,623/-, (II) DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) TOWARD S CASH PURCHASES WHICH WAS NOT ACCOUNTED RS.14,82,877/- AND (III) PR OFIT ON UNACCOUNTED SALES RS.1,23,450/- ALONG WITH OTHER DI SALLOWANCES AGGREGATING TO RS.38,33,755/-. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AO FOR PEAK INVESTMENT FOR RS.19,14,623/- AND OBSER VED AS UNDER: 4.3.2 REGARDING THE LEGAL CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION BEING MADE MERELY ON THE BA SIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDI NGS WITHOUT ANY COGENT AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AND ON GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS AND MATERIALS, I FIND THAT THOUGH AN AD MISSION WAS MADE IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE SAME WAS NOT ACCE PTED WHILE FILING THE RETURN WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONE D THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY WAS NOT BINDIN G ON HIM AND THUS, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS IMPERATIVE ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GATHER EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL TO STRENGTHEN THE ADDITION. I FIND THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE THAT THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM A LOCAL PARTY ITSELF AND THE PURCHASES FROM HIM ARE MADE ALMOST ON DAILY BAS IS AS PER THE ANNEXURES IMPOUNDED. IF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS TO BE ACCEPTED T HAT THE PURCHASES MADE ARE SOLD AND REALIZED IN 15 DAYS REQ UIRING THE CONSIDERATION OF PEAK INVESTMENT IN SUCH PURCHASES AS UNEXPLAINED, THERE WOULD HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN A DIFF ERENCE IN THE INVENTORY FOUND ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. FROM THE STATEMENT INCORPORATING THE CONTENTS OF IMPOUNDED MATERIAL A/ 11 AND A/12 ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE TOTAL UNACCOUNTED PU RCHASES AND CORRESPONDING PEAK INVESTMENT IS DETERMINED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE PURCHASES ARE MADE FOR THE PERIOD 29.11.20 05 TO 06.02.2006 AND THE PURCHASES MADE DURING THE PERIOD OF 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE LAST REPORTED PURCHASE ON 06.02.2 006 IS SUBSTANTIAL AND THEREFORE, IF SUCH PURCHASES WERE T O BE RETAINED ITA NO.1011/AHD/2010 (AY: 2006-07) ITO WARD -2, BHARUCH VS SHRI BALDEV T. HARIYANI 4 AS STOCK/INVESTMENT, THERE WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENCE IN THE PHYSICAL INVENTORY TAKEN ON THE DATE OF SURVEY AS C OMPARED TO THE INVENTORY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. FROM THE RECOR DS, I DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH DIFFERENCE BEING FOUND AND, THEREFORE , I AM INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRINCIP LES LAID DOWN IN THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSE E AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE B ROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, I HOLD THAT THE AD DITION MADE IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN STOCK CANNOT B E SUSTAINED AND THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 5.1 FURTHER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIO N OF RS.14,82,877/- MADE U/S 40A (3) OF THE ACT FOR CASH PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASES MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY FOLL OWING THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF (I) HYNOUP FOOD & OIL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., 48 ITD 202 (AHD) AND (II) SHA RMA ASSOCIATES VS ACIT, 55 ITD 171 (PUNE). 5.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,23,450/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PROFIT GENERATED FRO M THE SALE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS BY GIVING TELESCOPIC EFFECT ON AD DITION MADE FOR RS.2,10,463/- DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN PHYSICAL CASH AN D CASH BALANCE AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 6. THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A ) GROSSLY ERRED IN DELETING RS.19,14,623/- FOR ADDITION MADE FOR PEAK INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASES MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS, THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS.14,82,877/- FOR CASH PURCHASES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS U/S 40A (3) OF THE ACT AND FURTHER ERRED IN GRANTING BENEFIT OF TE LESCOPING FOR THE ITA NO.1011/AHD/2010 (AY: 2006-07) ITO WARD -2, BHARUCH VS SHRI BALDEV T. HARIYANI 5 ADDITION MADE FOR PROFIT GENERATED OUTSIDE THE BOOK S FOR RS1,23,450/-. THE LEARNED DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THESE ADDITIO NS WERE AGREED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY BASED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER MATERIALS FOUND DURING THE COURS E OF SURVEY. THE LEARNED DR, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO WITH RESPECT TO THESE ADDITIONS MAY BE SUSTAINED. 7. THE LEARNED AR ON THE OTHER HAND, STOUTLY ARGUED THAT THOUGHT THE ASSESSEE WAS PURCHASING AND SELLING EDIBLE OIL OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON WHOLESALE BASIS, THERE WAS NO INVEST MENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH TRADING ACTIVITY SINCE ALL TH E PURCHASES WERE MADE EITHER ON CREDIT OR BY PAYMENT OF CASH AND ALL THE STOCK PURCHASED WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY SOLD FOR CASH. HE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE TRADING ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS KEPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NO CREDITS WERE EXTENDED TO ANY P ARTY FOR THE FEAR OF IT GOING BAD AND UNENFORCEABILITY IN THE COURT O F LAW. THE LEARNED AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITH R ESPECT TO THE DELETION OF RS.14,82,877/- U/S 40A (3) OF THE ACT A ND RS.1,23,450/- BY GIVING TELESCOPING BENEFIT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 8.1 (I) DELETION OF RS.19,14,623/-: THE ASSESSEE HAS NO DOUBT ADMITTED THE PURCHASES AND SALES OF GOODS OUTSIDE T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME RETRACTED FOR THE PE AK INVESTMENT OF RS.19,14,623/- AGREED UPON AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. I T IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT LOOKED INTO THE NATUR E OF BUSINESS AND ITA NO.1011/AHD/2010 (AY: 2006-07) ITO WARD -2, BHARUCH VS SHRI BALDEV T. HARIYANI 6 TRANSACTIONS AND COME OUT WITH ANY CONCRETE EVIDENC E TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT FOR SUCH PURC HASES MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE CANNOT BE SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT IN HIS WHOLESALE BUSINESS OF EDIBLE OIL, CASH AND CREDIT P URCHASES WERE MADE HOWEVER THE GOODS WERE SOLD ONLY ON CASH BASIS AT VERY LOW MARGIN OF PROFIT. THE LOW MARGIN OF PROFIT IN THIS NATURE OF TRADE IS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE THE R EVENUE OUGHT TO HAVE PROBED FURTHER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS FOR HIS TRADING ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE BO OKS WITH SOME RELIABLE MATERIALS. INSTEAD PURELY BASED ON ASSUMPT IONS AND PRESUMPTIONS THE LD.AO HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE W OULD HAVE MADE INVESTMENTS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE REFORE, WE RELY ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) CITED SUPRA A ND CONFIRM THE SAME. 8.2 (II) ADDITION OF RS.14,82,877/-: THE LEARNED AO HAD MADE ADDITION U/S 40A (3) OF THE ACT FOR RS. 14,82,877/- SINCE IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH PURCHAS ES OF RS.71,88,782/- WHICH WERE MORE THAN RS.20,000/- OUT SIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THIS ADDITI ON RELYING UPON CERTAIN DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BE NCH AND PUNE BENCH MENTIONED SUPRA WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, TH E DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE U S. SECTION 40A (3) OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER: ITA NO.1011/AHD/2010 (AY: 2006-07) ITO WARD -2, BHARUCH VS SHRI BALDEV T. HARIYANI 7 SECTION 40A: (3) WHERE THE ASSESSEE INCURS ANY EXPENDITURE IN RE SPECT OF WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE, AFTER SUCH DATE (NOT BEING L ATER THAN THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH,1969) AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THIS BEH ALF BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OF FICIAL GAZETTE, IN A SUM EXCEEDING [ (TWENTY) THOUSAND] RU PEES OTHERWISE THAN BY [AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT] [TWENTY PER CENT OF SU CH EXPENDITURE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION.]: PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR ANY YEAR NOT BEING AN ASSESSMENT YEA R COMMENCING PRIOR TO 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1969, IN RESPECT OF ANY LIABILITY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY EXPENDIT URE AND SUBSEQUENTLY DURING ANY PREVIOUS YEAR THE ASSESSEE MAKES ANY PAYMENT IN RESPECT THEREOF IN A SUM EXCEEDING [ (TWENTY) THOUSAND] RUPEES OTHERWISE THAN BY [ AN ACCOUNT PAY EE CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT] THE AL LOWANCE ORIGINALLY MADE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN WRONGL Y MADE AND THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER MAY RECOMPUTED THE TOTA L INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH LI ABILITY WAS INCURRED AND MAKE THE NECESSARY AMENDMENT, AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY THERETO, THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION ( 7) OF THAT SECTION BEING RECKONED FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSME NT YEAR NEXT FOLLOWING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE PAYME NT WAS ALSO MADE; PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE MADE WHERE ANY PAYMENT IN A SUM EXCEEDING [(TWENTY) THOUSAND] RUPEES IS MADE OTHERWISE THAN BY [AN ACCO UNT PAYEE CHEQUE DRAWN ON A BANK OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT] IN SUCH CASES AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS MAY BE PRESCR IBED, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF BANKING F ACILITIES AVAILABLE, CONSIDERATIONS OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AN D OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS.] ITA NO.1011/AHD/2010 (AY: 2006-07) ITO WARD -2, BHARUCH VS SHRI BALDEV T. HARIYANI 8 FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IT IS CLEAR TH AT THE LEARNED AO HAD RIGHTLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION FOR MAKING THE D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.14,82,877/-. THE ACT VIVIDLY STIPULATES THAT TWE NTY PERCENT OF THE EXPENSES FOR WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE BY CASH EXCEEDIN G RUPEES TWENTY THOUSAND SHALL BE DISALLOWED. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO ON THIS ISSUE AND SET ASIDE THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 8.3 (III) ADDITION OF RS.1,23,450/- : THE LEARNED AO HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,27,472/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT EARN ED FROM PURCHASES AND SALES OF GOODS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. T HE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME BY TELESCOPING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN PHYSICAL CASH BALANCE AND BOOK BALANCE AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR RS.2,10,463/- WHICH W AS CONFIRMED. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND THE DECISIO N OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO BE UNJUST. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH RESPECT TO E ARNING OF PROFIT FROM PURCHASES AND SALES MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT SUCH PROFIT WILL REMAIN IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND REQUIRES TO BE TA XED. HOWEVER, IN SUCH SITUATION THE SURPLUS CASH FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SURVEY WHICH WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CAN BE OBVIOUSLY POINTED OUT TO BE THE PROFIT EARNED FROM THE PURCHA SES AND SALES OF GOODS MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE , WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) OF GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY TELESCOPING THE EXCESS CASH IN HAND WIT H THE PROFIT EARNED FROM TRADING ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS. WE THEREFORE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) O N THIS COUNT. ITA NO.1011/AHD/2010 (AY: 2006-07) ITO WARD -2, BHARUCH VS SHRI BALDEV T. HARIYANI 9 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PART LY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31-05-2012 SD/- SD/- (D. K. TYAGI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ 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 D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 24-05-12 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 25-05-12 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 TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 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: