Rajesh Bhatia, Delhi V. ITO, Ward-35(2), New Delhi

ITA 1137/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3484 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: K R MANJANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Onus to prove
• Section: 153A; 133(6); 131; 68; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R.K PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1137/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 MR. RAJESH BHATIA F-50, KOHLAPUR ROAD, KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI -110007 PAN NO.AAHPB6307N VS ITO WARD 35 (2) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. K. R. MANJANI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SH. S. L. ANURAGI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 19/02/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/02/2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2017 OF THE CIT(A)-12, NEW DELHI RELATING TO A. Y. 2003-04. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESEE READS AS UNDER :- LEARNED CIT APPEAL HAS ERRED ON FACT AS WELL AS LA W IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,50,000/- EVEN THOUGH THE APPEL LANT PRODUCED OWN BANK ACCOUNT, CHEQUES ISSUED BY CREDITORS, THEIR CON FIRMATIONS WHICH PROVED THAT THEY WERE REGULAR ASSESSES BOTH THE CRED ITORS HAVING DIED AND SHIFTED TO NEW ADDRESSES WHICH WERE ALSO SUPPLIED. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETE D 2 U/S 153A ON 28.12.2007 AT AN INCOME OF RS.8,72,120/ - AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1,22,120/- WHEREI N ADDITION OF RS.7,50,000/- WAS MADE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN. THE ASS ESSEE HAD SHOWN TO HAVE RECEIVED LOANS FROM TWO PARTIES I.E. RS.2,50,000/- FROM SHYAM GOPAL & SONS, 367-A, KATRA HUSSAIN, KHARI BAOLI AND RS.5,00,000/- FROM PREM LA TA. AGAINST ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSE E FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE SAME AN D ON FURTHER APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE, THE TRIBUNAL V IDE ORDER DATED 23.01.2015 ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESEE AND RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE DENOVE AFT ER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEA RD. 3.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE G ENUINESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LENDER S IN RESPECT OF LOAN OF RS.2,50,000/- AND RS.5,00,000/- RAISED F ROM M/S. SHYAM GOPAL AND SMT. PREM LATA. THE ASSESSEE IN RE SPONSE TO THE SAME FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION ALONGWITH BANK STATEMENT OF SH. RAJESH BHATIA SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED AMOUNT OF RS.2,50,000/- AND RS.5,00, 000/- RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY ARGUED THAT THE IDENTITY AND GENUINESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE PROVED. THE A SSESSING OFFICER, THEREAFTER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133 (6) DATED 25.07.2017 AND 11.08.2016 TO UNITED BANK OF INDIA, CANARA BAN K, M/S. SHYAM GOPAL & SONS (HUF) AND MRS. PREM LATA RESPECT IVELY FOR VERIFICATION OF THE CONFIRMATION OF ADVANCES, G ENUINESS OF 3 THE TRANSACTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PERSON S. UNITED BANK OF INDIA REPORTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PERSON FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD IS NOT AVAILABLE SINCE THEIR SY STEM GOT ON LINE FROM 31.12.2007 AND ANNUAL RECORDS ARE ALSO NO T AVAILABLE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AFTER 8 YEARS THE Y DO NOT KEEP THE RECORDS IN THEIR CUSTODY. THE WARD INSPECTOR W AS DEPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SERVE NOTICE U/S 133 (6 ) AND TO VERIFY THE PRESENCE OF THE SAID PARTIES. IT WAS RE PORTED THAT NO SUCH PERSONS ARE FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. ON BEI NG ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PRODUCE THE ABOVE PARTI ES BEFORE HIM, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE A SSESEE. DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND GENUINESS OF T HE TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING THE PR OVISION OF SECTION 68, ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,50,000/- TO TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESEE. 3.2 BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HA D SUBSTANTIATED THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND THE GENUINESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS BY FILING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS :- 'I) AFFIDAVIT OF THE APPELLANT EXPLAINING THAT THES E PARTIES ARE ENGAGED IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. II) CONFIRMATIONS FROM KM. PREM LATA. III) HER COPY OF ACCOUNT OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 WITH M/S. R. L. TRADERS, TO WHOM LOAN WAS GIVEN BY HER AND RETURNED TO HER IN FEBRUARY, 2002. THIS SHE GAVE TO SHRI RAJESH BHATIA I.E. APPELLANT 4 ON 27.04.2002. IV) COPY OF CHEQUE ISSUED BY KM. PREM LATA, BANK SLI P SHOWING THE DEPOSIT OF THIS CHEQUE IN SHRI RAJESH BHATIAS ACCOU NT. V) CONFIRMATION OF M/S. SHYAM GOPAL & SONS, WHOSE P OSITION IS EXPLAINED IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE APPELLANT. VI) COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAJESH BHATIA, SHO WING RECEIPT OF BOTH LOANS. VII) SIMILARLY COPY OF ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAJESH BHAT IA SHOWING THE RETURN OF LOAN TO KM. PREM LATA. 4. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SH. SHYAM GOPAL HA D DIED AND HIS LEGAL HEIRS HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY VIDE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 03.02.2011. THEIR WHEREABOUTS ARE ALSO N OT KNOWN BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO PURCHASED THE PROPERTY HAD A LSO SOLD THE PROPERTY. THE LOANS WERE TAKEN IN 2002 AND ONE CANNOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE CREDITORS ONCE THE LOANS WERE REPAID. IT WAS ARGUED THAT SMT PREM LATA IS THE DAUGHTER OF SH . RAJESH KUMAR GARG, HER BROTHER AND COUSINS ARE STILL RESID ING IN NAVEEN SHAHDARA. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE CANNOT ENSURE THE ATTENDANC E OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND SINCE THE LENDERS ARE PERSONS OF MEANS AND ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS AND THE AMOUNTS AR E ALREADY RETURNED BACK NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 5. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH T HE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND 5 UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSER VING AS UNDER :- 7.6 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE APPEL LANT FILED AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY HIM, CONFIRMATION FROM SMT. PREM LATA OF HER ACCOUNT WIT H R. L. TRADERS, CHEQUE ISSUED BY SMT. PREM LATA, SLIP SHOWING DEPOSIT OF CHEQUE, CON FIRMATION FROM SHYAM GOPAL & SONS , COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWING RECEIPT OF TWO L OANS AND COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWING RETURN OF CHEQUE TO SMT. PREM LATA. 7.7 IF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS ARE TAKEN ON THEIR FACE VALU E, THE IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIO N WILL BE TREATED AS PROVED. BUT THE HONBLE ITAT DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECI DE THE ISSUE DE NOVO AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN THIS PROC ESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DEPUTED HIS INSPECTOR TO LOCATE THE CREDITORS ON THE GIVEN ADDR ESSES. THE INSPECTOR REPORTED THAT THE SAID PERSONS WERE NOT RESIDING ON THE GIVEN ADDRESS ES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) TO THE SAID LENDERS BUT THOSE NOT ICES WERE NOT REPLIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE SA ID LENDERS BUT THE SUMMONS ALSO REMAINED UNCOMPLIED WITH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISS UED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE BACKDROP OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND INSTEAD OBJECTED ON THE G ROUND OF LIMITATION FOR PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISPOSED OF F THE OBJECTION. INSPITE OF ALL THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER NOR WAS HE ABLE TO PRODUCE THE SHOW CALLED LENDERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. M ERE TRANSACTIONS THROUGH THE BANKING CHANNEL AND FILING OF RETURN BY THE SAID LENDERS DO NOT PROVE THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. I FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 1. CIT VS. PRECISION FINANCE PVT. LTD., 208 ITR 465 ( CAL) 2. MANGE LAI JAIN VS. ITO, 315 ITR 105 (MAD) 7.8 IN THE ABOVE CASES, THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT MERE PROOF OF IDENTITY OF CREDITOR OR THAT TRANSACTION WAS BY CHEQUE, IS NOT SUFFICIENT T O SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 68. 7.9 SIMILARLY, IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, THE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ONUS OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF A SUM OF MONEY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY AN ASSESSEE IS ON HIM. 6 1. ROSHAN DI HATTI VS. CIT, 107 ITR 938 (SC) 2. KALE KHAN MOHAMMAD HANIF VS. CIT, 50 ITR 1 (SC) 7.10 THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE CASE OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR BHATIA FOR AY 2003-04. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DI LIGENTLY CONDUCTED THE INQUIRY TO VERIFY THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND TO LOOK BEYOND THE APPARENT. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PARTIES COULD NOT BE PRODUCED AS THE MATTER WAS OLD. ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOUBTED THE GENUINE NESS OF THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE THE HONBLE 1TAT BY CONDUCTING THE INQUIRY, THE BURDEN OF PROOF WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SATISFY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE OUTCOME OF HIS INQUIRY WAS NOT CORRECT. I ALSO FIND THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASES RE LIED ON BY THE APPELLANT ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I CONFIRM THE ADDITION AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASS ESSE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO PA GE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO T HE CHEQUE ISSUED BY SH. SHYAM GOPAL & SONS AMOUNTING TO RS.2, 50,000 ON 15.04.2002. REFERRING TO PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER B OOK HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH THE REFUND OF RS.2, 50,000/- M/S. SHYAM GOPAL & SONS (HUF). REFERRING TO PAGE 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO AM OUNT OF RS.5 LACS GIVEN BY SMT. PREM LATA VIDE CHEQUE DATED 27.04.2002. REFERRING TO PAGE 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE REFUND OF RS.5,00 ,000/- TO MRS. PREM LATA ON 17.11.2004. HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E ABOVE TWO LENDERS HAVE ALREADY EXPIRED AND THERE WAS NO P OSSIBILITY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE ABOVE TW O PERSONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT SH. SHYAM GOPAL HAD DIED AND HIS LEGAL HEIRS HAVE SOLD THE PROPERTY OWNED BY SHYAM GOPAL. 7 PURCHASERS HAVE ALSO SOLD THE ABOVE PROPERTY FOR WH ICH IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO TRACE OUT WHEREABOUTS OF THE LEGAL HEIRS OF MR. SHYAM GOPAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE THREE STOREY BU ILDING OWNED BY LATE SH. SHYAM GOPAL SUBSTANTIATES HIS STA NDING IN THE SOCIETY TO EXTEND THE LOAN OF RS.2,50,000/- SIM ILARLY, SMT. PREM LATA HAD GIVEN THE MONEY OUT OF THE LOAN RETUR NED TO HER BY M/S. R. L. TRADERS TO WHOM THE LOAN WAS GIVEN EA RLIER. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED FULL DETAILS TO S UBSTANTIATE THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CRED ITORS AND GENUINESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, THE ADDIT IONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A ) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 8. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ONUS IS ALWAY S ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO THE SATIS FACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE IDENTITY AND CR EDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND GENUINESS OF T HE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON HIM. THEREFOR E, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINE D BY THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS MADE ADDI TION OF RS.7,50,000/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DI SCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON HIM REGARDING THE LOAN OF RS.2,50,000/ - OBTAINED 8 FROM M/S. SHYAM GOPAL & SONS (HUF) AND RS.5 LACS OB TAINED FROM MRS. PREM LATA. I FIND THE LD. CIT (A) SUSTAI NED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE REASONS OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAG RAPH. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESE E THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST ON HIM BY PRO VING THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITOR S AND GENUINESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THEREFORE, NO ADD ITION U/S 68 OF THE IT IS CALLED FOR. IT IS ALSO HIS ARGUMEN T THAT BOTH THE LENDERS HAVE EXPIRED AND IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE ON HIS PART TO PRODUCE THE SAID PERSON BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR HIS VERIFICATION. I FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANC E BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISH ED BY THE ASSESEE IN THE PAPER BOOK IT CAN BE VERIFIED THAT T HE LOANS WERE OBTAINED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND HAS ALSO BEEN RETURNED TO THE LOAN CREDITORS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YE ARS. THE CONFIRMATIONS AND THE AFFIDAVITS WERE GIVEN EARLIER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAD SET ASIDE THE I SSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVE ASSESSMENT . I FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESE E THAT BOTH THE LOAN CREDITORS HAVE EXPIRED IN THE MEANWHILE AN D THEREFORE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESEE TO PR ODUCE ABOVE TWO PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD FILED THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF MRS. PREM LATA FOR FINAN CIAL YEAR 2001-02 WITH M/S. R. L. TRADERS TO WHOM LOAN WAS GI VEN AND SUCH LOAN WAS RETURNED TO HER IN FEBRUARY 2002 AND THEREAFTER SMT. PREM LATA HAD EXTENDED THE LOAN OF RS. 5 LACS ON 27.04.2002 AND THEREFORE, THE SOURCE OF MS. PREM LATA IS ESTABLISHED. SO FAR AS LOAN OF RS.2,50,000/- FROM S H. SHYAM 9 GOYAL IS CONCERNED, THE THREE STOREY BUILDING AT NE W DELHI WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD SHOWS THAT HE IS A PERS ON OF MEANS TO ADVANCE A LOAN OF RS.2,50,000/-. IT IS AL SO TO BE NOTED THAT THE MATTER IS VERY OLD AND THE LENDERS A RE ALREADY DEAD. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE LOAN OBTAI N DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 FROM M/S. SHYAM GOYAL WAS RE TURNED TO HIM IN THE YEAR 2003-04 AND AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LACS OBTAINED FROM SMT. PREM LATA HAS BEEN RETURNED TO HER DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER I AM OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ADDITION U/S 68 IS NOT JUST IFIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. I, THEREFORE , SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.7,50,000/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALL OWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.02.2019. SD/- (R.K PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* DATE:- 25 .02.2019 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 10 DATE OF DICTATION 18.02.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/ PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 25.02.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. THE DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGIST RAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER