M/s. Surat beverages Ltd., Surat V. The ACIT.,Circle-4, Surat

ITA 1189/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 118920514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M MATHIVANAN
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Valuation report
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VP AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANK AMONY,AM) ITA NO.1189 AND 1934/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2006-07 M/S. SURAT BEVERAGES LTD., 101- 107, SAJNI COMPLEX, NEAR SCE COMPLEX, CITY LIGHT ROAD, SURAT P. A. NO. AADCS 0403 K THE A. C. I. T., CIRCLE-4, ROOM NO.223, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS THE A. C. I. T., CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT M/S. SURAT BEVERAGES LTD., 101-107, SAJNI COMPLEX, NEAR SCE COMPLEX, CITY LIGHT ROAD, SURAT P. A. NO. AADCS 0403 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI RASESH SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI M. MATHIVANAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 07-08-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05-10-2012 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED BY THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED CIT-(A) U/S. 250 R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT., IN APPEAL NO. CAS- IV/III/224/08-09 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DA TED 10-02-2010. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE GROUNDS IN ITS APP EAL WHEREIN GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. THE LONE SURVIVING GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW. ITA NO.1189 AND 1934/AHD/2 010 (AY: 2006-07) M/S. SURAT BEVERAGES LTD. 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND I CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME- TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE AD DITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.61,44,189/- AS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.1,22,88,377/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALLE GED UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE U/S 69 C OF THE I. T. ACT. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THREE GROUNDS IN ITS APPE AL WHEREIN GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. THE LONE GROUND NO.1 IS REPRODUCED HE REIN BELOW. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A)-IV, SURAT HAS ERRED IN RESTRICT ING THE ADDITION AT RS.61,44,189/- INSTEAD OF RS.1,22,88,37 7/- MADE BY THE AO U/S. 69C OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND PACKAGING DRINKING WA TER, PET BOTTLES AND MOULD. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2006-07 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,30,600/- ON 29-12-20 06. SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 3 0-12-2008. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT IT WAS NOTICED B Y THE LEARNED AO THAT THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS OF INCOMPLETE MOULD FO R FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 WAS SHOWN AT RS.2,50,00,000/- WHICH WAS TOO HIGH COMPARING TO THE WORKING PROGRESS OF RS.1,42,33,000 /- DECLARED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 WHICH WORKS OUT TO 16% OF TH E TOTAL MANUFACTURING COST. SINCE, THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN M ANUFACTURING COST DURING THE YEAR COMPARING TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR , THE MANUFACTURING COST COULD BE ESTIMATED TO RS.15,62,5 0,000/-. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ITA NO.1189 AND 1934/AHD/2 010 (AY: 2006-07) M/S. SURAT BEVERAGES LTD. 3 RS.8,89,49,871/-. AFTER DETAILED ANALYSIS ON THE IS SUE, THE LEARNED AO WORKED OUT A FIGURE OF RS.1,22,88,377/- BEING UNEXP LAINED EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH SOUR CE OF INCOME WAS NOT DISCLOSED AND ACCORDINGLY ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 69C OF THE ACT SINCE THE PROVISO CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT SUCH UNEX PLAINED EXPENDITURE WHICH IS DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SH ALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME. T HE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE L EARNED CIT(A) AFTER DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS SUSTAINED THE ADD ITION OF 50% OF RS.1,22,88,377/- AMOUNTING TO RS.61,44,189/- WITH T HE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE REASONS GIVEN BY ASSESSING O FFICER AND ALSO THE SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT. AFTER CAREFU LLY GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED EXPENDITURE MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT VALUE OF WIP DISCLOSED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAT THE C OST OF MANUFACTURING/TOTAL EXPENSES RECORDED IN THE MOLDIN G DIVISION. AS AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT TH E VALUATION OF WIP IS MADE AT THE MARKET RATE AND AS THE PROFIT MARGIN IN MOLDING DIVISION IS VERY HIGH (71.34% FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS AGAINST 79.36% FOR PRECEDING YEAR) , THE VALUE OF WIP IS SHOWN AT HIGHER FIGURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT VALUATION OF WIP ON HIGHER SIDE ONLY BECAUSE O F THE ABOVE FACT AND THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH INDICATES THAT ANY UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY AS SESSEE. AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO PO INTED OUT THAT MANUFACTURING COST FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION & THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR ARE ALMOST SIMILAR & THE SE BEING THE FACTS, THERE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY VAST DIFF ERENCE IN THE VALUATION OF CLOSING WIP & THE TOTAL COST OF MANUFA CTURING. WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT O RECORD RELATING TO ANY UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE BEING INCUR RED YET ITA NO.1189 AND 1934/AHD/2 010 (AY: 2006-07) M/S. SURAT BEVERAGES LTD. 4 SIGNIFICANT VARIATION BETWEEN THE TOTAL COST INCURR ED & FIGURE OF CLOSING WIP WHEN THERE IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE IN TH E MANUFACTURING COST FOR THE TWO YEARS IS ALSO REQUIR ED TO BE GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION. HENCE, CONSIDERING THE TOT ALITY OF FACTS OF THE CASE, IT WOULD BE QUITE REASONABLE IF ADDITI ON IS SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF RS.1,22,88,377/- WHICH WILL TAKE CARE OF THE ELEMENT OF UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE & ALSO THE P OSSIBLE OVERVALUATION OF CLOSING WIP ON ACCOUNT OF ITS ALLE GED VALUATION AT MARKET PRICE. THUS, ADDITION IS SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.61,44,189/- & THE BALANCE AMOUNT IS DELETED. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS BEFORE US: 2. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASS ESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DISCREP ANCIES IN THE VALUE OF WIP OF INCOMPLETE MOULD. THE WIP OF INCOMP LETE MOULD FOR F. Y. 2004-05 WAS RS.1,42,33,000/- I.E. 1 6% OF THE TOTAL MANUFACTURING COST WHEREAS IN F. Y. 2005-06 IS VALUED AT RS.2,50,00,000/-. ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERI NG THAT THERE IS ALMOST NO CHANGE IN MANUFACTURING EXPENSES AND A DOPTED WIP RATIO @ 16% AND WORKED OUT MANUFACTURING COST A T RS.15,62,50,000/- FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. DURING THE YEAR THE MANUFACTURING COST INCURRED BY ASSESSEE IS RS.8,89,49,871/-. 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, VIDE LETTER DATED 19.12.20 08, ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS REQUESTED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.6,73,00,129/- SHOULD NO T BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES U/S. 69C AND SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO TH IS, ASSESSEE MADE A SUBMISSION VIDE LETTER DATED 26.12.2008, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED AT PARA NO. 6.3 OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER [PAGE NO. 4 % 5]. HOWEVER, ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION. D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN THE WORKING OF EXPENSES FOR MOLDING DIVISION WHICH WAS RS.1,43,54,673/- FOR A. Y. 2005-06 AND RS.1,29,24,1 23/- FOR A. ITA NO.1189 AND 1934/AHD/2 010 (AY: 2006-07) M/S. SURAT BEVERAGES LTD. 5 Y. 2006-07. THE RELEVANT WORKING IS SHOWN AT PARA N O.6.7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER [PAGE NO.7]. THE WIP FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS RS.2,50,00,000/- AND RS.1,42,33,00 0/- IN THE PRECEDING YEAR WHICH SHOWS THAT WIP CONSTITUTED 99. 15% AND 193.43% OF THE MANUFACTURING COST RESPECTIVELY FOR A. Y. 2005- 06 & 2006-07. THE WORKING OF COST OF MANUFACTURING & WIP IS SHOWN AT PARA NO.6.10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER [PAGE NO.8]. AS PER THIS WORKING THE COST OF MANUFACTURING COMES TO 100.85% OF WIP FOR A. Y. 2005-06. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THIS RAT IO ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT MANUFACTURING COST FOR A. Y. 200 6-07 AT RS.2,52,12,500/- BEING 100.85% ON WIP OF RS.2,50,00 ,000/-. THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE DIFFERENTIA L AMOUNT OF RS.1,22,88,377/- (2,52,12,500 1,29,24,123) AS UNE XPLAINED EXPENDITURE AND AS PER HIS FINDINGS GIVEN AT PARA N O.6.12 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER [PAGE NO.9] ADDED THE SUM OF RS.1,22,88,377/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E TREATING UNACCOUNTED EXPENSE AS DEEMED INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E U/S. 69C OF THE ACT. 4. IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT IS SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING H UGE ADDITION RUNNING INTO CRORES OF RUPEES, WITHOUT BRINGING ANY COGENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS DOING BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF PACKAGE DRINKING WATER, PET PERFOR MS, PET BOTTLES, MOULDS & MOULDS SPARES. IN THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN MOL DING DIVISION ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN WIP ON ACCOUNT OF INCOM PLETE MOULDS AT RS.2.50 CRORES. HE ASKED ASSESSEE TO GIVE SEPARATE DATA PERTAINING TO MOLDING DIVISION WHICH WAS GIVEN BY ASSESSEE & THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO.7 OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID DATA IT HA S BEEN OBSERVED BY HIM THAT AS AGAINST THE TOTAL EXPENSES (WITHOUT DEPRECIATION) OF RS.1,29,24,123/-, ASSESSEE HAS SHO WN WIP OF RS.2.50 CRORES. ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME, IT HAS BE EN CONCLUDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE INCURR ED UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE FOR WHICH NO SOURCE OF INCO ME HAS BEEN EXPLAINED. AS SUCH IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE B EING INCURRED BY ASSESSEE ONLY BY COMPARING THE COST FAC TOR WITH ITA NO.1189 AND 1934/AHD/2 010 (AY: 2006-07) M/S. SURAT BEVERAGES LTD. 6 WIP. HOWEVER, NO PRESUMPTION CAN BE DRAWN ON THE BA SIS OF SAID COMPARISON THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED UNEXPLAI NED EXPENDITURE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY POINTED OUT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THAT IN CASE OF MOL DING DIVISION THE PROFIT MARGIN IS VERY HIGH & THE STOCK OF WIP WAS VALUED AT MARKET PRICE. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THA T NET PROFIT RATIO OF MOLDING DIVISION IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECED ING YEAR WAS 79.36% & THE SAME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 71.34%. THIS IS A CLEAR INDICATION OF THE FACT THAT PROFIT MARGIN IN CASE OF MOLDING DIVISION IS VERY HIGH. AS ASSESSEE HAS DONE VALUATION OF WIP AT MARKET RATE, NO PRESUMPTION CAN BE DRAWN RELATING TO ANY UNACCOUNTED UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE BEING INCUR RED BY ASSESSEE PURELY ON THE GROUND THAT TOTAL COST OF MO LDING DIVISION IS LOWER THAN THE CLOSING STOCK OF WIP. 5. IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION HERE THAT IN THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE ALSO FILED DETAILE D CHART SHOWING RATES ADOPTED FOR VALUATION OF DIFFERENT IT EMS COMPRISING THE WIP STOCK & IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTI ON HERE THAT THE RATES ADOPTED FOR MAKING VALUATION OF WIP CORRE SPONDS TO THE SALES RATE OF VARIOUS ITEMS WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEAR AFTER COMPLETION OF ENT IRE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. THIS FACT VERY MUCH ESTABLIS HES THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT VALUATION OF WIP HAS BE EN MADE AT THE MARKET RATES. 6. NOW IF THE PRESUMPTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS T HAT ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED ANY AMOUNT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH CO-RELATES TO THE ITEMS APPEARING UND ER THE HEAD OF WIP, IN THAT CASE IT IS VERY MUCH IMPERATIVE ON HIS PART TO BRING AT LEAST SOME MATERIAL/EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHI CH INDICATES THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE TOWARDS MANUFACTURING OF MOULDS. THIS IS MORE SO BECAUSE HE IS MAKING HUGE ADDITION RUNNING INTO CRORES OF RUPEES. SUCH K IND OF ADDITION MUST NOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF OBSERVATI ONS THAT AS MANUFACTURING COST IS LOWER THAN THE TOTAL WIP, THE RE IS ELEMENT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE BEING INCURRED BY ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C FOR MAKING THE ADDITION, BUT HOWEVER, PROVISIONS OF SAI D SECTION ITA NO.1189 AND 1934/AHD/2 010 (AY: 2006-07) M/S. SURAT BEVERAGES LTD. 7 CANNOT BE INVOKED IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS IT IS VER Y MUCH CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY UNEXPLAINED EXPE NDITURE/ EXPENDITURE WHICH IS NOT RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS & THERE IS NOT EVEN AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH IND ICATES ANY UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE BEING INCURRED BY ASSESSEE. THUS, ADDITION ONLY REPRESENTS THE FERTILE IMAGINATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH DOES NOT CARRY ANY WEIGHT IN THE EYES OF LAW. INSTEAD OF APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN HIGHER PROFIT IN MOLDING DIVISION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS COME DOWN VERY HEAVILY ON ASSESSEE BY MAKING HUGE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSI NG OFFICER BEING VERY MUCH ARBITRARY & HIGHLY ILLOGICAL IS PRA YED TO BE DELETED. 7. THE LEARNED AR ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE OTHER HAND, TH E LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. EVEN THOUGH, THE LEARNED AR HAS REASONED OUT IN VARIOUS WAYS, HE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE ACTUAL AND AC CURATE WORKING FOR THE VALUATION OF WORK IN PROGRESS BEFORE THE RE VENUE OR BEFORE US. FURTHER, TO JUSTIFY THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT IT HA S VALUED THE WORK IN PROGRESS ON THE BASIS OF MARKET VALUE; THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY VALUATION REPORT. THEREFORE, THE DECI SION OF THE CASE; SANJEEV WOOLEN MILLS VS CIT, 279 ITR 434 RELIED UPO N BY THE LEARNED AR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ITS FACTS OF THE CASE. LOO KING AT THE COMPLEXITY OF THE ISSUE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD SUS TAINED ADDITION OF RS.61,44,189/- ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS. ON AN OVERALL EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AN AD DITION OF RS.30,00,000/- REQUIRES TO BE SUSTAINED TO MEET THE END OF JUSTICE. ITA NO.1189 AND 1934/AHD/2 010 (AY: 2006-07) M/S. SURAT BEVERAGES LTD. 8 ACCORDINGLY, WE SUSTAIN AN ADDITION OF RS.30,00,000 /- ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS. SINCE, WE HAVE FURTHER REDUCED THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), WE HEREBY DISMISS THE APPEAL OF TH E REVENUE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05-10-2012 SD/- SD/- (G. C. GUPTA) VICE PRESIDENT (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 DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 13-09-2012 (DIRECT DICTATION) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: -09-12 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: