Shri Pawankumar Goenka, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(2), Surat

ITA 1183/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63286 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Peak credit; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO 1183 /AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CBENCH, AHM EDABAD (BEFORE SHRI D. K. TYAGI, JM & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI A.M.) I.T.A. NO.1183/AHD/2012. (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) PAWANKUMAR GOENKA M-28, METRO TOWER, RING ROAD, SURAT. (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT. (RESPONDENT) PAN: ABKPG 0817A APPELLANT BY : MR.HARDIK VORA RESPONDENT BY : MR. D.K.SINGH, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 26-09-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-12-2012 PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT (A)- II, SURAT DATED 9-2-2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE READS AS UNDER:- THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUST AND PROPER ON THE FA CTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION U/S.154 OF THE ACT STATING THAT THE PRESUMPTION OF APPELLANT, THAT THERE WAS A MIST AKE COMMITTED BY THE LD. CIT (A), WAS WRONG. ITA NO 1183 /AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 2 3. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT THE APPEAL IS FI LED LATE BY 24 DAYS. IN THIS CASE THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BY 6-5- 2012 BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED ON 30-5-2012 WHICH MEANS IT IS DELAYED B Y 24 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE APPELLANT HAS MOVED THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE REASON FOR THE DELAY WAS STATED THAT INITIALLY HE WAS ADVI SED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT THAT THE FILING FEES FOR FILING APPEAL B EFORE ITAT WILL BE RS.10,000/-. DUE TO HIS FINANCIALLY WEAK POSITION H E WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO ARRANGE THE AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR THE FILING THE APPE AL. LATER ON HE WAS ADVISED THAT SINCE THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE RECTIF ICATION ORDER OF CIT (A), THE FILING FEES WILL BE RS.500/- AND NOT RS.10,000/ -. HE THEREAFTER PROCEEDED TO FILE APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY FILED THE APPEAL ON 30-5-2012. THE LD. A.R. THUS URGED THAT IN VIEW OF TWO CONTRAR Y ADVICE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME AND THEREFORE URG ED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BE CONDONED. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND OPPOSED THE PRAYER FOR CONDONATION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THE REASON OF ASSESSEE FOR DELAYED FILING OF APPEAL PRI MA FACIE APPEARS TO BE PLAUSIBLE. IN THE CASE OF CALCUTTA LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & OTHERS (62 CTR 23 (SC)), HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER :- LIMITATION DELAY POWER TO CONDONE DELAY FOR SUFF ICIENT CAUSE IS FOR DOING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE COURTS SHOULD HAVE A PRAGMATIC AND LIBERAL APPROACH STATE AND PRIVATE LITIGANT SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY LIMITATION ACT, 1963,SEC. 5. ITA NO 1183 /AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 3 5. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES AS STATED IN THE CONDONATION PETITION AND FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CALCUTTA LAND ACQUISIT ON VS. MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 62 CTR 23 (SC), WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE DELAY NEEDS TO BE CONDONED IN THE PRESE NT CASE AND WE THEREFORE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THIS A PPEAL TO DECIDE IT ON MERITS. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS CULLED OUT FROM T HE ORDERS ARE AS UNDER:- 7. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE FILED HIS RET URN OF INCOME SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,06,642/-.THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED U/S. 143(3) AND THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.11,98,880/- AFTER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 10,6 3,242/- U/S.69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND RS. 29,000 /- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O. ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). CIT (A) VIDE HIS ORDER D ATED 29-11-2011 GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO ASSESSEE. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A.O. FOUND THROUGH AIR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK IN SURAT IN WHICH CASH OF RS. 10,26,999/- HAS BEEN DEP OSITED. INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE DENIED THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SUCH ACCOUNT I N REPLY TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 13 1. LATER ON ASSESSEE ITA NO 1183 /AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 4 ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT THAT THE AMOUNT HAS NOT B EEN DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IT WAS USED TO RECEIVE PAYMEN TS FROM DEBTOR AND ISSUING CHEQUES TO THE CREDITORS. A.O. AFTER ANALYZ ING THE CREDITS IN THE ACCOUNT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CREDITS IN THE ACCOUNT WERE NOT SALES. HE FURTHER FOUND THAT THE CASH SALES MENTION ED IN THE CASH BOOK DID NOT TALLY WITH CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. F URTHER, THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE NOT IN ROUND FIGURE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENTED PAYMENT TO CREDITORS WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE A. O., IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDEN CE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. A.O. THUS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CREDIT AND ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE DEPOSI T IN ACCOUNT INCLUDING CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.10,26,999/-, OTHER CREDITS OF R S.36,217/- AND INTEREST CREDIT OF RS.26/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND ACC ORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.10,63,242/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 9. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE, VIDE ORDER DATED 29-11-2011 GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT HAD INITIALLY STATED THAT HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY ACCOUNT S WITH PNB BUT WHEN CONFRONTED, HE ACCEPTED THAT SAID ACCOUNT TRAN SACTIONS HAD NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN HIS P & L ACCOUNTS. ALTHOUGH, SUB SEQUENTLY IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE CREDITS IN THE ACCOUNTS WERE OUT O F RECORDED SALES. THE ANALYSIS OF THE A.O. MADE ON THE BASIS OF COMPA RISON OF THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE BANK STATE MENT REVEAL OTHERWISE THAT THE CREDITS WERE NOT THE SALES AS REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS. THESE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE INCORRECT BY THE APPELLANT. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE B ANK STATEMENT,. IT IS ITA NO 1183 /AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 5 SEEN THAT DEPOSITS IN THIS ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN MADE M AINLY FROM PLACES OUTSIDE SURAT, FREQUENTLY AND IN DENOMINATIO NS WHICH ARE ODD. THE DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN MADE FROM TEZPUR, JORHAT, PI LIBANGA, (RAJASTHAN), GAUHATI, SHRIGANGANAGAR, SURATGADH,TIN SUKHIYA AND ALSO SURAT. THIS SUGGESTS THAT THE SUMS REPRESENT S ALES AND NOT DEPOSIT OF OWN CASH. AT THE SAME TIME, THE ACCOUNT WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT AND IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE TRANS ACTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PEAK OF CREDIT THEORY HAS TO BE APPLIED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE INCOME ON AC COUNT OF INVESTMENTS AND PROFIT WILL BE PEAK OF CREDIT APPEA RING IN THE ACCOUNT PLUS PROFIT EARNED ON CREDITS IN THE ACCOUNT AFTER THE DATE OF PEAK PLUS INTEREST PLUS ANY PAYMENTS NOT AVAILABLE FOR ROTATI ON. THE REASONABLE PROFIT FROM TRANSACTIONS WOULD BE THE DISCLOSED GRO SS PROFIT IN THE ACCOUNT. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT PEAK OF RS.1, 71,321/- APPEARS ON 5-10-2007. THE BOOK GROSS PROFIT IS 11.98%, SAY 12%. THE TOTAL OF CREDITS AFTER THE DATE OF PEAK IS RS.4,46,000/-. IN TEREST CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT IS RS.26/-. AMOUNTS NOT AVAILABLE FOR ROTAT ION AS PER ASSESSEES OWN SUBMISSION IS RS.53,996/-. THEREFORE THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FROM THE ACCOUNT INCLUDING UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT AND INCOME WOULD BE RS.2,78,863/-. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO TAKE THIS AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FROM THE UNDISCLOSED BA NK ACCOUNT AS AGAINST RS.10,63,216/-. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLO WED. 10. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION U/S. 154 BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE CIT (A) HAD TAKEN P EAK BALANCE AT RS.1,71,321/- BEING INTRA-DAY BALANCE OF 5-10-2007 WHEREAS HIGHEST PEAK BALANCE ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.1,15,721/- . ASSESSEE THUS URGED THAT ADDITION BE MADE CONSIDERING THE PEAK CR EDIT OF RS.1,15,721/-. CIT (A) VIDE ORDER DATED 9-2-12 PASSED U/S. 154 HEL D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WRONGLY PRESUMED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS COMMITTED MISTAKE WHICH WAS APPARENT FROM RECORD. HE THEREFORE REJECTED THE APP LICATION U/S.154 BY HOLDING AS UNDER: ITA NO 1183 /AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 6 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ISS UE RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF APPELL ANT THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY TAKEN THE PEAK BALANCE AT RS.1,71,321/- IN PLACE OF RS.1,15,721/-.THE APPELLANT, IN FACT, HAS PRESUMED THAT PEAK BALANCE HAS TO BE WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF NET BALANCE OF EACH DAY OF CREDITS IN AN ACCOUNT. AS PER HIS OPINION, ALL ENTR IES ON A PARTICULAR DAY HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND NET BALANCE HA S TO BE TAKEN AS PEAK CREDIT BALANCE AND, IN HIS CASE, THE NET FIGUR E ON THE DATE OF 5- 10-2007 COMES AT RS.56,321/- BEING CLOSING BALANCE NOT RS,.1,71,321/- AS IT IS THE OPENING BALANCE OF THAT DATE. IN MY OPINION, THIS METHOD OF WORKING IS NOT CORRECT. FOR CALCULAT ING THE PEAK AMOUNT OF ANY RUNNING ACCOUNT, THE PEAK BALANCE OF ALL CRE DITS OF THAT PERIOD HAS TO BE WORKED OUT. WHETHER THIS PEAK CREDIT BALA NCE IS IDENTIFIED AMONG THE VARIOUS ENTRIES OF A PARTICULAR DAY OR AM ONG THE ENTRIES OF DIFFERENT DATES, DOES NOT MATTER. FOR EXAMPLE, IN A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION, IF A BALANCE ON A PARTICULAR DAY STARTS WITH RS.10 LAKHS AND THERE ARE VARIOUS ENTRIES OF DIFFERENT AMOUNTS DURI NG THE DAY AND NET BALANCE COMES AT RS.2 LAKHS AT THE END OF THAT DAY, THE PEAK BALANCE. IN MY OPINION, HAS TO BE TAKEN AT RS.10 LA KLHS, WHEREAS, AS PER THE LOGIC OF APPELLANT, IT HAS TO BE RS.2 LAKH BECAUSE IT IS THE NET BALANCE OF THE DAY. IN THE SIMILAR FASHION, THE APP ELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE PEAK BALANCE AT RS.1,71,321/- TAKEN BY LD. CIT (A) IS NOT CORRECT WHICH SHOULD BE TAKEN AT RS.1,15,721/-. 4. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE APPELLANT HAS W RONGLY PRESUMED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS COMMITTED MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, HENCE, TO BE RECTIFIED. THEREFORE, THE APPL ICATION FILED BY APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 154 OF I.T. ACT IS HEREBY R EJECTED. 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT (A) PASSED U/S. 1 54 THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. BEFORE US THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT WHILE CON FIRMING THE ADDITION, CIT (A) CONSIDERED THE PEAK CREDIT AMOUNT AS THE MA XIMUM INTRA-DAY BALANCE OF RS.1,73,721/- AS ON 5-10-2007 INSTEAD OF RS.1,15,721/-.THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE PEAK BALANCE OF THE DAY WO ULD BE MAXIMUM OF THE ITA NO 1183 /AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 7 BALANCE AT THE STARTING OF DAY AND THE BALANCE AFTE R CONSIDERING THE AGGREGATE DEBITS AND CREDITS IN A DAY. HE FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THE MAXIMUM INTRADAY BALANCE OF THE DAY CANNOT BE CONSI DERED AS THE PEAK AMOUNT BECAUSE IF THE MAXIMUM INTRADAY BALANCE IS C ONSIDERED THEN IN CASE WHERE A BANK POSTS ALL THE CREDIT ENTRIES BEFO RE POSTING THE DEBIT ENTRIES, THE PEAK CREDIT FIGURE WOULD BE DIFFERENT AS COMPARED TO A CASE WHERE A BANK POSTS FIRST THE DEBIT ENTRIES AND THEN THE CREDIT ENTRIES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EACH BANK FOLLOWS A DIFFEREN T METHOD OF PASSING THE ENTRIES IN THE ACCOUNT OF ITS CUSTOMERS. HE PLACED ON RECORD THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE STATEMENT HE PO INTED OUT THAT IN A SITUATION IF THE WITHDRAWALS ARE POSTED FIRST BY TH E BANK BEFORE POSTING THE DEPOSITS, THE PEAK CREDIT WILL WORK OUT TO THE MAX IMUM BETWEEN RS.1,15,721/- (BEING THE CLOSING BALANCE AND RS.56, 321/-. (1,15,721 - 1,15,000 + 55,600) BEING THE CLOSING BALANCE. HOW EVER, IF DEPOSIT ENTRIES ARE POSTED FIRST BY THE BANK BEFORE POSTING THE WIT HDRAWALS, THE PEAK CREDIT WILL BE THE MAXIMUM BETWEEN THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS.1,15,721/- & RS.1,71,321/-. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN BANKS , CONSIDER THE MAXIMUM OF OPENING BALANCE AND CLOSING BALANCE TO W ORK OUT THE INTEREST PAYABLE/RECOVERABLE FROM ITS CUSTOMERS. HE THEREFO RE URGED THAT THE PEAK BALANCE THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IS RS.1,15,721/- AND NOT RS.1,71,321/- AS CONSIDERED BY CIT (A). 13. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT C IT (A) HAS CORRECTLY WORKED OUT THE PEAK CREDIT AND THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN HIS ORDER AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. ITA NO 1183 /AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 8 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE BANK STATEMENT PLACED ON RECORD WE FIND THAT ON 5-10- 2007 THE BANK HAD POSTED ALL THE CREDIT ENTRIES AND LATER ON DEBIT ENTRIES IN THE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. BECAUSE OF THE POSTING OF CREDIT ENTRIES BEFORE THE DEBIT ENTRIES BY THE BANK, THE MAXIMUM CREDIT A PPEARS TO BE OF RS.1,71,321/-. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT FOR WORKING OUT THE PEAK CREDIT BALANCE ON A PARTICULAR DAY THE METHOD THAT OUGHT T O BE FOLLOWED IS THE MAXIMUM OF (A) OPENING BALANCE & (B) OPENING BALANC E PLUS ALL DEPOSITS LESS ALL WITHDRAWALS. THE AFORESAID METHOD IS ALSO FOLLOWED BY BANKS FOR CHARGING/PAYING INTEREST TO ITS CUSTOMERS AND THERE FORE IT APPEARS TO BE A UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED METHOD. WE ARE FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THE BANK HAS POSTED THE CREDIT ENTRIES A T THE BEGINNING AND DEBIT ENTRIES LATER ON THERE IS A BALANCE OF RS.1,7 1,321/-. HAD THE BANK FOLLOWED DIFFERENT PROCESS OF POSTING I.E. THE DEBI T ENTRIES FIRST AND THE CREDIT ENTRIES LATER, THE MAXIMUM CREDIT BALANCE WOULD HAV E BEEN DIFFERENT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE AS PER THE BANK STATEMENT, THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 4-10-2007 WAS OF RS.1,15,721/- (CREDIT) AND THE CLOSING BALANCE AT THE END OF THE DAY ON 5-10-2007 WAS OF RS.56,321/- (CREDIT). CONSIDERING THIS FACTUAL ASPE CT THE MAXIMUM CREDIT BALANCE AS APPEARING FROM THE BANK STATEMENT THAT S HOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PEAK CREDIT IS RS.1,15,721/-. WE THUS DIRECT TH E A.O. TO CONSIDER THE BALANCE OF RS.1,15,721/- INSTEAD OF RS.1,73,321/- A S THE PEAK CREDIT. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO 1183 /AHD/2012 A.YR.. 2008 -09 9 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21 -12 - 2012 . SD/- SD/- (D. K. TYAGI) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-II, SURAT. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD. 1.DATE OF DICTATION 23 - 11 -2012 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 29 / 11 / 2012 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S - -2012. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 21 - 12 -2012 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S - -2012 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK - -2012. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..