Murudeshwar Power Corporation Limited , Bangalore V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income TAX Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1163/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2360 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNA DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: S SUKUMAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Reason to believe
• Section: 69C; 143(1); 69B; 148; 132; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1163/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 MURUDESHWAR POWER CORPORATION LTD., 14, 7 TH FLOOR, NAVEEN COMPLEX, M.G RAOD, BENGALURU. PAN AADCM 8818 Q. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S SUKUMAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. SWAPNA DAS, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 09.05.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.06.2019 O R D E R PER B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 29/12/2017 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-4, BENGALURU AND IT RELATES TO ASST. YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE, INTERALIA, IS CHALLENGING THE VAL IDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE STATED IN BRI EF. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GENERATION OF POWER. IT FILED ITS ITA NO.1163/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 10 RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A DMITTING NIL INCOME. THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBS EQUENTLY, THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE DATED 27/ 3/2014 U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER STATING THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY FILED BY IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE AO COMPLETED THE AS SESSMENT BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.52 LAKHS U/S 69C OF THE ACT SUBST ANTIALLY AND U/S 69B OF THE ACT PROTECTIVELY. 4. THE FACTS WHICH LED TO THE REOPENING OF ASSESSME NT IS STATED IN BRIEF. THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY RECORDING THE FOL LOWING REASONS WHICH WAS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DAT ED 12/2/2015 OF THE AO. 'THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS WAS INITIATED U /S. 132 OF THE IT ACT IN THE OF M/S.RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. IT HAS BEEN ASCERTAINED FROM THE RECORDS SEIZED IN THE PREMISES THAT THERE IS A SUNDRY PAYMENT OF RS.52,00,000/- IN THE CASE OF M/S MURUDESHWAR POWER CORPORATION LTD. FOR THE AY 2007-08, WHICH HAS ESCA PED TAX. IT CAN BE NOTICED THAT THE REVENUE CARRIED OUT SEAR CH OPERATIONS IN THE HANDS OF M/S RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD AND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A SUNDRY PAYMENT OF RS.52.00 LAKHS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. BAS ED ON THE ABOVE SAID INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT. 5. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE REOPENING OF THE AS SESSMENT AND THE SAID OBJECTION WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE AO BY PASSING A SEPARATE ORDER U/S 152 OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE EXT RACT BELOW THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. ITA NO.1163/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 10 ORDER U/S 152 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 1961 01. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE WAS REOPENED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AFTER FORM ING A BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS DULY RECORDED AND THE SANCTION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WAS OBTAINE D FROM THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 27/03/20 14 WHICH HAS BEEN DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. 02. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE ACKNOWLEDGED THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE ON 28/03/2014 VIDE LETTER DATED 23/04/2014 FILED ON 24/04/2014 . IN THIS LETTER, IT WAS STATED THAT THE RETURN FLIED ON 29/10/2007 MAY BE T REATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE. 03. THE COPY OF THE ASSESSEE'S LETTER DATED 23/04/2 014 AND 16/10/2014 ARE ANNEXED TO THIS ORDER FOR FACILI TY OF READY REFERENCE, THEREAFTER, VIDE LETTER DATED 22/1 0/2014, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT A COPY OR THE REASONS RECORDED HAD BEEN SOUGHT ON 23/04/2014 WHICH IS EVIDENTLY INCORR ECT. 04. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAD IN THE LAND MARK JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF M/SGKN DRIVE SHAFT LTD. HEL D ON RECEIPT OF A NOTICE U/S 148, THE ASSESSEE IS EXPEC TED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF NOTICE. THIS MEANS A STATU TORY FORM HAS TO BE FILLED AND DULY VERIFIED. THE DEPART MENTAL E-FILINGWEBSITE ALSO PROVIDES FOR AN OPTION TO E-FI FE THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE U/S 148. 05. THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT CAST AN OBLIGATION ON T HE DEPARTMENT TO FURNISH THE REASONS RECORDED AND NEED ANY OBJECTIONS RAISED AFTER THE INITIAL COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE AND BEFORE CONTINUING WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS LAID DOWN STATUTORIL Y .AS WELL AS JUDICIALLY. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE COMPANY WHICH I S ABLY ASSISTED BY INTERNAL AUDITORS, STATUTORY AUDITORS, TAX AUDITORS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS WOULD HAVE TO RECK ON WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 144, 234A(3), 234(3 ) AND 276CC OF THE IT ACT, ITA NO.1163/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 10 06. CONSIDERING THE TIME LIMITATIONS INVOLVED AS WE LL AS IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE, THE COPY OF THE REASONS WERE FURNISHED IN GOOD FAITH TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO MEET THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS AGAINST THIS APPROACH, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO R AISE OBJECTIONS ON GROUNDS WHICH ARE ALSO MET HEREUNDER. 07. THE HIGHLIGHTING OF THE WORD 'REASSESS' IN A ST ATUTORY NOTICE WHICH IS SERVED IN A NON-STATUTORY FORM DOES NOT RENDER THE PROCEEDINGS VOID, SECONDLY,- THERE WAS N O REQUIREMENT TO ENTER INTO A SURMISE WHEN THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS MORE THAN FAIR IN PROVIDING THE REASONS WHEREIN IT WAS NOT EVEN DUE. THIRDLY, FOR THE PURPO SES OF THE ASSESEE'S RECORD, A COPY OF THE APPROVAL DATED 27/03/2014 IS ALSO ENCLOSED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FAC T-THAT A VALID AND LEGAL NOTICE WAS SERVED 08. HAVING DEALT WITH A TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS, THE SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTION THAT ALLEGED SUNDRY PAYMENTS APPEARING IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL OF ANOTHER ENTITY WOULD NOT FORM BEARING ON THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE' S COMPANY IS PRE-MATURE. THE SAID SEIZED MATERIAL UNL ESS BEEN PROVED TO BE NOT FORMING PART OF THE ACCOUNTIN G TRANSACTIONS OF THE SAID ENTITY WOULD CONTINUE TO H AVE EVIDENTIARY VALUE. ONCE THE PAYMENT IS RECOGNIZED I N THE HANDS OF THE OTHER ENTITY AND THE ASSESSEE IN QUEST ION HAS NOT REFLECTED THE SAME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME THERE ARISES A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE T O TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THE EVENT, THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES THAT IT HAD NO ROLE IN THE SAID TRANSACTION', THEN THE ASSESSMENT OF SUCH INCOME CO ULD BE DROPPED. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE NOT LEAD ING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSMENT OF SUCH IN COME WOULD BE FEASIBLE. THUS, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF EVIDENTIARY VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FORMING A REAS ONABLE BELIEF FOR INITIATING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS AG AINST THE ACTUAL ASSESSMENT OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THIS OBJECTION IS NOT TENABLE. 09. THE ASSESSEE IS YET TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOM E AND REQUIRES THAT A COPY OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL BE PROV IDED. THE SOURCE OF ANY INFORMATION NEED NOT BE DIVULGED, FURTHER, IT IS ONLY WHEN A DOCUMENT IS USED IN THE COURSE ITA NO.1163/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 10 OF AN ASSESSMENT THAT THE SAME NEEDS TO BE SHARED WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ACTUALLY TRAVELLING T OWARDS AN ASSESSMENT U/S 144 WHEREIN IT WOULD BECOME RATHE R DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE DATA EVEN BEFORE A DECISION ON THE ASSESSMENT IS TAKEN. 10. LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS T HAT THE REASONS ARE NOT ELABORATE AND THEREFORE NO REASONABLE RELIEF TO BE FOUND. THE QUANTUM OF WORDS USED; DOES NOT DEFINE THE REASONABILITY OF THE FORM ATION OF BELIEF, THE CRUX OF THE MATTER IS THE CONTENT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE IS IN RECEI PT OF RS.52 LAKHS FROM M/S RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., WHICH HAS NOT FOUND PLACE IN THE BOOKS. ACCORDINGLY, A REASON TO BELIEVE EXISTS BEYOND DOUBT. . 11. THE OBJECTIONS RAISED HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VERDICT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MIS GKN DRIVE SHAFT LTD. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE OBJ ECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY ADDING RS. 52.00 LAKHS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE VALIDITY OF REO PENING AND HENCE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE SAME BEFORE US. 7. WE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS LEGAL ISSUE AND PER USED THE RECORD. A READING OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WOULD SHOW THAT THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THERE IS SUND RY PAYMENT OF RS.52 LAKHS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08. THE SAID INFORMATION HAS BEEN OBTAINED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN THE HANDS OF M/S RNS INFRA STRUCTURE LTD. THE REASONS RECORDED IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE ABO VE SAID AMOUNT OF ITA NO.1163/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 10 RS.52 LAKHS WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S RNS INF RASTRUCTURE LTD., OR THE SAME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ABOVE SA ID COMPANY. 8. IN THE ORDER PASSED TO REJECT THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ( PASSED U/S 152 OF THE ACT, WHICH IS EXTRACTED ABOVE), IT C AN BE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED IN PARAGRAPH 10 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE SAID SUM OF RS.52 LAKHS FROM M/S RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BY TH E ASSESSEE. HOWEVER A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, MORE PARTICULARL Y PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE SAME, WOULD SHOW THAT THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS.52 LAKHS TO M/S RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LT D. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE EXTRACT BELOW THE RELEVANT OBSERVATI ONS MADE BY THE AO. 03. IT WAS SEEN FROM THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF M/S RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD . THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, A SUM OF RS.52 LAKHS HAD BEEN RECORDED AS SUNDRY PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AND NOT ACCOUNTED IN TH E BOOKS. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED, THE ASSESSEE HAD ORIGINALLY CONTESTED THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS WHICH HAVE BEEN MET WITH AN ORDER U/S 152 OF IT ACT DATED 20/02/2015. THEREAFTER, IT HAS FURNISHED DETAILS OF VARIOUS PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. IT IS SEEN FROM THESE EXTRACTS THAT THESE AMOUNTS RELATE TO ACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN ROUTED THROU GH BANKING CHANNELS OR THROUGH INSTRUMENTS SUCH AS TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE SUM OF RS.5 2 LAKHS DOES NOT FIND A PLACE IN THE ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF AC COUNTS AS WELL. ACCORDINGLY, THIS SUM OF RS.52 LAKHS IS FO UND TO BE AN UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OR AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AS NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR M/S RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. HAVE CONFIRMED THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS IT PERTAINS TO. ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERI NG THE TIME LIMITATION FACTORS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF IT ACT ARE INVOKED SUBSTANTIVELY AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B ARE INVOKED PROTECTIVELY AND THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.52 LAKHS HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX. ITA NO.1163/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 10 9. IT CAN BE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS NOT SURE AS TO WHETHER THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE OR PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME WHEN HE RECORDED T HE REASONS FOR REOPENING. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.147 OF THE A CT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THA T ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY AS SESSMENT YEAR. THEN ONLY, HE CAN RESORT TO REOPENING OF AS SESSMENT. 10. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS RECEIVED INFORMATION ABOUT SOME MONEY TRANSACTION B ETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AS NOTICE D EARLIER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT AWARE AS TO WHETHER THE IM PUGNED MONEY TRANSACTION IS A CASE OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESS EE OR PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NO INFORMATION, AT THE TIME OF REOPENING T HE ASSESSMENT AS TO WHETHER THE SAID MONEY TRANSACTION WAS ACCOUN TED BY THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. WITHOUT THESE DETAILS, IN OUR CON SIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE REACHED BELIEF THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE. 11. IT IS WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR MAKING FISHING ENQUIRIES. FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. DINESHKUMAR SHAH ( TAX APPEAL NO.451 OF 2018) SUPPORTS THIS PROPOSITION:- IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT EVEN IN CASE WHERE THE ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT IS MADE WITHOUT SCRUTINY, THE REQUIREMEN T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FORMING THE BELIEF THAT INCOME CH ARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, WOULD APPLY. REFEREN CE IN ITA NO.1163/BANG/2018 PAGE 8 OF 10 THIS RESPECT CAN BE MADE OF THE JUDGMENT IN CASE OF INDUCTOTHERM (INDIA) P. LTD. V. M. GOPALAN, DEPU TY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED IN [2013] 356 I TR 481 (GUJ). IT IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT THE NOTI CE OF REOPENING CAN BE SUPPORTED ON THE BASIS OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE CANNOT SUPPLEMENT SUCH REASONS. THE THIRD PRINCIPLE OF LAW WHICH IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED AND WHICH WOULD APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WO ULD NOT BE PERMITTED FOR A FISHING OR A ROVING INQUIRY. THI S CAN AS WELL BE SEEN AS PART OF THE FIRST REQUIREMENT OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INC OME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, NOTICE OF REOPENING WHICH IS ISSUED BARELY FOR MAKI NG FISHING INQUIRY, WOULD NOT SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT . 12. HENCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ONLY TO MAKE FISHING ENQUIRIES, WHIC H IS NOT PERMITTED. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY WE QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. 13. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED CERTAIN OTHER LEGAL ISSUES. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE DO N OT FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THEM, AS THE SAME WOULD BE REN DERED ACADEMIC IN NATURE. ITA NO.1163/BANG/2018 PAGE 9 OF 10 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST JUNE, 2019. SD/ - (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (B.R BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, 21 ST JUNE, 2019. / VMS / COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER A SST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE. ITA NO.1163/BANG/2018 PAGE 10 OF 10 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.P.S .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE.. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO .. 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 11. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER . 13. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER. ..