GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT RG 10(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1090/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4364 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 21-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS NEERAJ VINAY BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: F V IRANI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

1 ITA 1090/M/09, M/S GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RA O, JM ITA NO. 1090/MUM/09 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 M/S GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD., C/O KALYANIWALLA & MISTRY, KALPATARU HERITAGE, 127 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, MUMBAI. 400 001. PAN AAACG2953R VS. D.C.I.T. RG. 10(2), 4 TH FL., AAYAKAR BHAWAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 20. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI F.V. IRANI RESPONDENT BY MRS. NEERAJ VINAY BANS AL ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) X, MUMBAI DATED 23.1.09. 2. GROUND NO. 1 TO 6 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL I NVOLVE A COMMON ISSUE RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES AND OTHER EXPENSES BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY WH ICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND/OR TRADING IN SOAPS, DETERGENTS, INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS ETC. IT IS ALSO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARES AND SECURITIES AN D DERIVES INCOME FROM LEASING PROPERTIES. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 29.10.05 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` NIL AS PER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND BOOK PROFIT OF ` 53,32,12,325/- U/S 115JB. DURING THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION, 2 ITA 1090/M/09, M/S GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF ` 21,73,85,180/-FROM SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT U/S 10( 34) AND 10(35). ACCORDING TO THE A.O., INTEREST AS WELL AS SOME OF THE ADMINISTRATIV E EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING OF SUCH EXEMPT I NCOME WERE LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A. HE, THEREFORE, REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY SUCH DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAID EXPENSES S HOULD NOT BE MADE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A. IN REPLY, A DETAIL SUBM ISSION WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH, AS SUMMARIZED BY THE A.O. I N PARA 4.2 OF HIS ORDER WAS AS UNDER:- (I) THAT IT DID NOT INCUR ANY SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE IN E ARNING THE DIVIDEND, NO SPECIFIC BORROWING OR EXPENDITURE AS ATTRIBUTABLE T O INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES. HENCE, NO EXPENDITURE CAN BE APPORTIONED TOWARDS EARNING OF D IVIDEND INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. (II) THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BORROWED FUNDS S OLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF CARRYING OUT ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, AND NOT FOR T HE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES. SUCH LOANS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED TO ACQUIRE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, FIXED ASSETS AND FOR THE DAY TO DAY BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY. (III) THAT THE TOTAL INVESTMENT AS ON 31.03.2005 IS ITSELF FAR BELOW THE TOTAL SALE PROCEEDS OF INVESTMENTS AND DIVIDEND RECEIVED DURIN G THE PAST TEN YEARS. THE INVESTMENTS ON WHICH THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND HAS BEEN R ECEIVED DURING THE YEAR IS NOT OUT OF BORROWINGS BUT OUT OF PLOUGH BACK OF SALE PR OCEEDS AND INVESTMENT INCOME OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. HENCE, NO INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THIS. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, IT WAS CONTENDED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. THAT INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY IT W AS NOT AT ALL ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME AND NO DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE SAME COULD BE MADE U/S 14A. 5. THE A.O. DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ACCORDING TO HIM, ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE I S CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OUT OF SURPLUS FUNDS, IT COULD HAVE UTILIZED THE SAID PAYMENTS FOR REPAYING THE BORROWING INSTEAD OF MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES. HE HELD THAT IT WAS THUS AN IN-DIRECT CASE OF DIVERSION OF BORROWED FUNDS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN 3 ITA 1090/M/09, M/S GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD. SHARES SO AS TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME AND SINCE SUCH DIVIDEND INCOME WAS EXEMPT FROM TAX, INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BORROWED FUNDS UT ILIZED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 14A. FOR THIS CONC LUSION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD. 286 ITR 1. HE ALSO NOTED IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD OWN CAPITAL AND RESERVE FUNDS OF ` 335.36 CRORES AS AGAINST INVESTMENT IN SHARES MADE AT ` 335.77 CRORES AS ON 31.3.05. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE RATIO OF BORROWED FUNDS TO THE TOTAL FUNDS AS ON 31.3.05 WAS 43.26% AND APPLYING THE SAID RATIO, HE HELD THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 145.25 CRORES WERE UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MA KING INVESTMENT IN SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS. HE ALSO WORKED OUT THE RATIO BETWEEN INVESTMENT OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS AND THE BORROWED FUNDS AT 56.79% AND APPLYING THE SAID RATIO, HE DISALLOWED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF ` 17.45 CRORES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 9.91 CRORES U/S 14A. HE ALSO HELD THAT 5% OF THE TOTAL REMUNERATION OF ` 4,09,67,078/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO ITS DIRECTORS WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING OF DIVIDEND I NCOME AND A SUM OF ` 20,48,350/- THEREFORE WAS DISALLOWED BY HIM OUT OF REMUNERATION TO DIRECTORS U/S 14A. OUT OF THE REMAINING ADMINISTRATIVE AND ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES , HE PRESUMED THAT A SUM OF ` 5 LACS WAS INCURRED IN RESPECT OF EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCO ME AND ACCORDINGLY A TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 25,48,350/- WAS MADE BY HIM U/S 14A IN ADDITION TO ` . 9.91 CRORES MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN INVOKING TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST AND OTHER ADMINIST RATIVE EXPENSES. HE, HOWEVER, RESTRICTED THE QUANTUM OF SUCH DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. TO ` 6.43 CRORES BY APPLYING RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 INSER TED W.E.F. 1.4.08. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SID ES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. (ITA NO. 626 OF 2010 DTD. 12.08 .2010), RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 IS APPLICABLE ONLY PROSPECTIVELY I.E. FR OM A.Y. 2008-09. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS 200 5-06, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID 4 ITA 1090/M/09, M/S GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD. JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE SAID RULE TO QUANTIFY THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. 7. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A, IT IS OBSERVED THAT ELAB ORATE SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. AS WELL AS BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) TO ESTABLISH THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS MADE OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS AND THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE ENTIRELY UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. AT THE T IME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN US THROUGH THE COPIES OF SUCH SUBMISSIONS PLACED IN HIS PAPER BOOK TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF BORRO WED FUNDS WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS MADE BY IT OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS. AS POINTED OUT BY HIM FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E. 2004-05, THE A.O. HIMSELF HAD ACCEPTED AFTER V ERIFICATION OF THE RELEVANT RECORD THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE ENTIRELY UTILIZED BY THE AS SESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS AND INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS MADE BY IT OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS. AS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY HIM FROM THE COPY OF FUND FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION PLACED AT PAGE 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK, FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF ` 46 CRORES WERE GENERATED FROM OPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH WERE MORE THAN THE NET I NVESTMENT OF ` 40.60 CRORES MADE IN THAT YEAR. HE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE FINDING GIV EN BY THE A.O. IN HIS ORDER THAT TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN SHARES A T ` 335.77 CRORES AS ON 31.5.05 WAS MORE THAN ITS OWN CAPITAL AND RESERVES AMOUNTING TO ` 335.36 CRORES IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IN THIS REGARD, HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE REL EVANT PORTION OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) PLACED AT PAGE NO. 3 OF HIS PAPER BOOK TO POINT OUT THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF ` 335.77 CRORES MADE IN THE SHARES, INVESTMENT OF ` 19.31 CRORES WAS MADE IN THE SHARES OF FOREIGN COMPANIES, THE DI VIDEND INCOME OF WHICH WAS LIABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. HE SUBMITTED THAT INVESTMENT OF ` . 316,46 CRORES ONLY THUS WAS MADE IN THE SHARES OF DOMESTIC COMPANIES, THE DIVIDEND INCOME O F WHICH WAS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S 10(34) AND THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS OF ` 335.36 CRORES IN THE FORM OF OWN 5 ITA 1090/M/09, M/S GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD. CAPITAL AND RESERVE TO MAKE THE SAID INVESTMENT AS ACCEPTED EVEN BY THE A.O. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY TO ESTABLISH THAT INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS MADE BY IT OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS AND THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE ENTIRELY UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. AS A MATTER OF FA CT, EVEN THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT DISPUTED THIS POSITION. ACCORDING TO THEM, THE ASSE SSEE, HOWEVER, COULD HAVE UTILIZED ITS SURPLUS FUNDS FOR REPAYING THE BORROWINGS INSTEAD O F INVESTING IN SHARES AND BY NOT DOING SO, THERE WAS DIVERSION OF BORROWED FUNDS TOWARDS I NVESTMENT IN SHARES TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME. FOR THIS CONCLUSION, RELIANCE WAS PLACED B Y THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HE RO CYCLES LTD. 323 ITR 518 CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, A SIMILAR STAND WAS T AKEN BY THE REVENUE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) IN THE CONTEXT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTE REST EXPENDITURE U/S 14A. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEP T THIS CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE OBSERVING THAT THE JUDGMENT OF ABHIS HEK INDISTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) WAS ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF INTEREST PAID ON LOANS GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERNS WITHOUT INTEREST. IT WAS HELD THAT THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS RECORDED IN THE SAID JUDGMENT THEREFORE HAVE TO BE READ IN THAT CONTEXT. IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLE S LTD. (SUPRA), A FINDING WAS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND F UNDS WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE DIVIDEND PROCEEDS AND NOT OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS AND IN VIEW OF THIS FINDING OF FACT, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE SAID DECI SION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES LTD. (SUPRA) AND HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O . OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES U/S 14A AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE SAME IS THEREFORE DELETED. 8. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANC E OUT OF COMMON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES U/S 14A , IT IS OBSERVED THAT THIS DISALLO WANCE MADE BY THE A.O. AT ` 25,48,350/- 6 ITA 1090/M/09, M/S GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD. WAS ENHANCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO ` 1,40,52,000/- BY APPLYING RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES 1962. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. (ITA NO. 626 OF 2010 DTD. 12.08.2010) , RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 IS APPLICABLE ONLY PROSPECTIVELY I.E. FROM A.Y . 2008-09. AS FURTHER HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE, THE QUA NTUM OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A FOR THE YEARS EARLIER TO A.Y. 2008-09 HAS TO BE WORKED OUT BY ADOPTING SOME REASONABLE METHOD. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS, A SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF 5% OF THE TOTAL EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME BEING REASONABLE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED IT. WE, THERE FORE, SUSTAIN THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) OUT OF OTH ER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES U/S 14A TO THE EXTENT OF 5% OF THE TOTAL EXEMPT INCOME. GROUN D NO. 1,2,5 & 6 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED WHEREAS GROUND NO. 3 & 4 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.7, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE AMOUNTING TO ` 1,16,125/- MADE BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE L D. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF AMORTIZATION OF PREMIUM PAID B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR LEASEHOLD LAND IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS I.E. A.Y. 2000-01 TO 2003-04. RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY T HE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS GROUND NO. 7 OF TH E ASSESSEES APPEAL. 10. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 8, IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN RELATING TO ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION ON THE OPENING WR ITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS AS PER THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDIN G ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES WON CASE FOR A.Y. 2003-04 RENDERED VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.9.200 8 IN ITA NO. 4197/MUM/06 WHEREIN A SIMILAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. RESPECTFULLY 7 ITA 1090/M/09, M/S GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD. FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE UPH OLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS GROUND NO. 8 OF TH E ASSESSEES APPEAL. . 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 8 TH OCTOBER, 2010. SD/- SD /- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 8 TH OCTOBER , 2010. RK COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) G - MUMBAI 4. THE CIT- X MUMBAI 5. THE DR BENCH, G 6. MASTER FILE // TUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI 8 ITA 1090/M/09, M/S GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD. DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED 27.9.10, 5.10.10 SR.P.S./P.S. 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 4.10.10, 5.10.10 SR.P.S./P.S. 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER. - J.M./A.M. 4.DRAFT DISCUSSED/ APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. J.M./A.M. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. SR.P.S./P.S. 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S. 8. DATE OF WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.