M/s. Alber Rose Chemicals(India) Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1245/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85639 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MK SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1245/AHD/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S.ALBER ROSE CHEMICSL (INDIA) PVT.LTD. 44, GIDC, PHASE-III, NARODA, AHMEDABAD / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1) AHMEDABAD ' ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCA 2792 B ( '% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &''% / RESPONDENT ) '%( / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY R.SHAH, A.R. &''%)( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.K. SINGH, SR.DR *) / DATE OF HEARING 16/01/2015 +,-.) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23/01/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VI, AHMEDABA D (CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 04/03/2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ITA NO.1245/AHD /2011 M/S.ALBER ROSE CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT.LTD. VS. IN COME TAX OFFICER ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 2 - YOUR APPELLANT BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-VI, AHMEDABAD (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) PRESENTS THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME ON THE FOLLOWING AMONGST OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL SET OUT HEREIN BELOW ARE INDEPENDENT OF AND WITHOUT PREJUDI CE TO EACH OTHER: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) G ROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 ,26,350/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR BELONGING T O THE APPELLANT THOUGH REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF ITS DIRECTOR, AND RS.20,095/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE HONBLE CIT(A) I S NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAME. YOUR APPE LLANT SUBMITS THAT AS THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR THE P URPOSE OF BUSINESS AND INCIDENTAL TO BUSINESS, THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLO WED AS DEDUCTION. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IT BE SO ALLOWED NOW. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERR ED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF A SUM OF RS.27,120/- U/S.14A R.W.RULE 8D. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT T HE APPELLANT ITSELF HAS DISALLOWED RS.3,743/- U/S.14A. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, NO FURTHER DISALLOWANC E WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. IT BE SO HELD NOW. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF SALES TAX OF RS.50,000/- OUT OF RS.76,999/- FOR WANT OF SALES TAX ORDER THOUGH APPE LLANT HAD SUBMITTED PROOF OF PAYMENT. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS FILED COPY OF CHALLA NS OF SALES TAX PAID, WHICH WAS PAID IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. I T IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH PAYMENT I S ALLOWABLE U/S.43B OF THE IT ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, IF IT IS HELD THAT THE SALES TAX PAID IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN AY 2007-08, THEN DIRECTION BE GIVE N TO ALLOW THE SAME IN A.Y. 2006-07 AS THE PAYMENT IS MADE IN AY 2 006-07. ITA NO.1245/AHD /2011 M/S.ALBER ROSE CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT.LTD. VS. IN COME TAX OFFICER ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 3 - 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 14/12/2009, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF CAR AMOUNTING TO RS.1,26,350/-, DISALLOWANCE OF CAR EXPENSES AMOUNTI NG TO RS.20,095/-, DISALLOWANCE BY INVOKING THE RULE 8D AMOUNTING TO R S.23,377/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF SALES TAX EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.76,999/-. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CI T(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPE AL. WHILE PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE AD DITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF CAR AMOU NTING TO RS.1,26,350/-, DISALLOWANCE OF CAR EXPENSES, DISALL OWANCE OF SALES TAX EXPENDITURE AND RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.14A OF THE ACT. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE O F DEPRECIATION OF CAR AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF CAR EXPENSES. THE LD.COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN C ONFIRMING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CAR WAS PURC HASED BY THE COMPANY OUT OF ITS FUNDS IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTO R OF THE COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. HE SUBMITT ED THAT THE ITA NO.1245/AHD /2011 M/S.ALBER ROSE CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT.LTD. VS. IN COME TAX OFFICER ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 4 - OWNERSHIP FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M YSORE MINERALS LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AT (1999) 239 ITR 775[SC]. HE SUBM ITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION VS. CIT REPORTED AT (2001) 249 ITR 214)[SC] HAS ASSUMED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE JUDGEMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MYSORE MINERALS LTD. VS. CI T REPORTED AT (1999) 239 ITR 775[SC]. THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS MISD IRECTED HIMSELF BY REJECTING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. HE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT BEFO RE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M.M.FISHERIES PRIVATE LTD . VS. CIT REPORTED AT 277 ITR 204(DELHI) AND ANOTHER JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT OF THE BENCH COMPRISING THE EQUAL STRENGTH IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. BASTI SUGAR MILLS CO.LTD. REPORTED AT (2002) 257 ITR 88(D ELHI) WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. H E SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY VAR IOUS JUDGEMENTS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS, I.E. THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SALKIA TRANSPORT ASSOCIATES REPORTED AT (1 983)143 ITR 39 (CAL.), THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AT (1990) 185 IT R 178 (DELHI), THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. D ILIP SINGH SARDARSINGH BAGGA REPORTED AT (1993) 201 ITR 995(BO M) AND OF CIT VS. MIRZA ATAULLAHA BAIG & ANR. REPORTED AT (1993) 202 ITR 291 (BOM). HE ITA NO.1245/AHD /2011 M/S.ALBER ROSE CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT.LTD. VS. IN COME TAX OFFICER ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 5 - SUBMITTED THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNA L (ITAT C BENCH AHMEDABAD) IN ITA NO.1471/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2006-07 IN THE CASE OF SWATI AUTO LINK P.LTD. VS. ITO VIDE ORDER DATED 15/ 02/2013 HAS ALSO DECIDED THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATION I N THE EVENT WHEN THE VEHICLE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN THE NA ME OF THE DIRECTOR. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD T O THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS, HAS PURCHAS ED CAR IN THE NAME OF ITS DIRECTOR. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CAR SO PURCHAS ED HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THEREFORE, I N THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CAS E OF MYSORE MINERALS LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AT (1999) 239 ITR 77 5[SC] AND OTHER CATENA OF JUDGEMENTS AS RELIED UPON DURING THE COUR SE OF HEARING, THE LD.CITR(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE CLAIM O F DEPRECIATION. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.SR.DR OPPOSED THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT A SI MILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MM FISHERIES PVT.LTD. VS. CIT (277 ITR 204). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERU SED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE AS WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGEME NT OF HONBLE APEX ITA NO.1245/AHD /2011 M/S.ALBER ROSE CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT.LTD. VS. IN COME TAX OFFICER ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 6 - COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPP LIES CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AT 249 ITR 214(SC). THE HON BLE APEX COURT HAS NOT DOUBTED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE JUDGMENT R ENDERED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MYSORE MINERALS LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AT (1999) 239 ITR 775[SC]. AN ANOTHER JUD GEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MM FISHERIES PVT.LTD. VS. CIT (277 ITR 204). HO WEVER, WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, THE EARLIER JU DGEMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. BASTI SUGAR MILLS CO.LTD. REPORTED AT (2002) 257 ITR 88(DELHI), WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE O F CIT VS. BASTI SUGAR MILLS CO.LTD. HAS HELD AS UNDER:- '6. IDENTICAL CASES CAME UP BEFORE THE DELHI TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF INDURE MALLEABLE AND ALLOY CASTING (P) LTD. IN ITA NO. 149 6/(DEL)/1978-79. IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR-CYC LE WHICH WAS NOT REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNA L VIDE ITS ORDER DT. 7TH JULY, 1980, GRANTED DEPRECIATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDE R OF THE BOMBAY BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SBC (P) LTD. IN ITA NO. 6 (BOM) 1974-75. SINCE VEHICLE IN QUESTION IS A MOVABLE ASSET, THE TRIBUNA L HELD THAT REGISTRATION AS REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPE RTY IS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR LEGAL OWNERSHIP. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWI NG THE ABOVE DECISIONS WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ON THE CAR WHICH WAS OWNED BY IT BUT NOT REGISTERED IN ITS NAME.' 4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTUAL MATRIX, IT APPEARS THA T THE QUESTION IS COVERED BY SEVERAL CASE LAWS, I.E., CIT VS. SALKIA TRANSPOR T ASSOCIATES (1983) 33 CTR (CAL) 198 : (1983) 143 ITR 39 (CAL) : TC 27R.266, C ONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD. VS. CIT (1990) 85 CTR (DEL) 116 : (1990) 185 I TR 178 (DEL) : TC 26R.532, CIT VS. DILIP SINGH SARDARSINGH BAGGA (199 3) 201 ITR 995 (BOM) : ITA NO.1245/AHD /2011 M/S.ALBER ROSE CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT.LTD. VS. IN COME TAX OFFICER ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 7 - TC 27R.212 AND CIT VS. MIRZA ATAULLAHA BAIG & ANR. (1993) 202 ITR 291 (BOM) : TC 27R.217. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE AFOREMENTIONED AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED I N THE AFFIRMATIVE, I.E., AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.1. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO TAKE ANY DIF FERENT VIEW THAN TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF WATI AUTO LINK P.LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA) THUS, THIS GROUND OF AP PEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.1,26,350/- MADE U/S.14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES, 1962. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS APPLIED THE RULE 8D WHICH WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF OW N FUNDS. 5.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SO FAR AS THE APPLICATION OF RULE 8D I S CONCNERED. N OW IT IS SETTLED THAT THE RULE 8D WOULD BE APPLICABLE W.E.F. AY 2008-09. ITA NO.1245/AHD /2011 M/S.ALBER ROSE CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT.LTD. VS. IN COME TAX OFFICER ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 8 - HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS EARN ED EXEMPT INCOME, THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF S UCH EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THEREFORE, THE DISALL OWANCE U/S.14A OF RS.27,120/- CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) APPEARS TO B E REASONABLE. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 7. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SALES TAX OF RS.50,000/- OUT OF RS.76,999/-. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN C ONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE W AS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED H IS INABILITY TO FURNISH THE ORDER RECEIVED FROM SALES TAX AUTHORITIES FOR E ARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. NOW SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY WAY OF ADVANCE SAL ES TAX IN THE EARLIER YEAR FOR WHICH LIABILITY HAS CRYSTALLIZED DURING TH E YEAR. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE ORDERS OF T HE SALES-TAX AUTHORITIES. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTEN TION TOWARDS PAGE NOS.75 TO 81 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. THE DOCUMENTS FILE D ARE IN GUJARATI LANGUAGE AND NO TRANSLATION OF THESE DOCUMENTS ARE PLACED ON RECORD. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE TRANSLATED PAPERS OF THE RELEVAN T DOCUMENTS, IT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER THE LIABILITY CRYSTALLIZED I N THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH WERE PAYABLE FOR THE EARLIER YE ARS AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH LIABILITIES WERE PAID SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REJECTED. ITA NO.1245/AHD /2011 M/S.ALBER ROSE CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT.LTD. VS. IN COME TAX OFFICER ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 9 - 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 23 RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 23/ 01 /2015 2..,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '% / THE APPELLANT 2. &''% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 345 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-VI, AHMEDABAD 5. 78& 45 , 45. , 3 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8:;<* / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '7 & //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 21.1.15 (DICTATION-PAD 15 -PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 21.1.2015 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.23.1.15 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 23.1.15 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER