The ITO, Ward-9(1), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Swastik Associates, Ahmedabad

ITA 1271/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 127120514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK OJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD , . .. . . .. . , , , , '# ' $ '# ' $ '# ' $ '# ' $ BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1271/AHD/2011 ( & ' (' & ' (' & ' (' & ' (' / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) THE I.T.O. WARD-9(1) AHMEDABAD & & & & / VS. M/S.SWASTIK ASSOCIATES RAIPUR MILL COMPOUND SARASPUR ROAD AHMEDABAD ) '# ./*+ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ABAFS 6575 R ( ), / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( -.), / RESPONDENT ) ), / ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIVEK OJHA, SR.D.R. -.), 0 / ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.M. MEHTA &1 0 # / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 23/05/2014 23( 0 # / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/05/2014 '4 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABA D (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 24/02/2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR (AY) 2008- 09. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL:- 1) THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.1,07,27,257/- U/S.80IB(10). 2) THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FULFILLS THE CONDITIONS L AID DOWN FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) EVEN WHEN THE LAND WAS IN THE NAME OF SOCIETY AND THE ASSESSEE HAD MERELY EXECUTED A W ORKS CONTRACT. ITA NO.1271/AHD /2011 ITO VS. M/S.SWASTIK ASSOCIATES ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - 3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 4) IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT HE ORDER OF THE LD.COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND TH AT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80IB (10) OF THE ACT OF RS.1,07,27,257/- ON 16/09/2008. THE CASE WAS SELE CTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED V IDE ORDER DATED 30/11/2010, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) DISALLOWED THE DE DUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS.1,07,27,257/-. AGAINST THIS, ASSES SEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO FOLLOWING THE ORDERS IN A SST.YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08 ALLOWED THE APPEAL. AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE LD.CIT(A), NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. GROUND NOS.1 & 2 ARE INTER-CONNECTED AND, THEREF ORE, THE SAME ARE DECIDED TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND S UBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IB(10) OF T HE ACT. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION(S) OF HON BLE TRIBUNAL (ITAT C BENCH AHMEDABAD) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE(S) IN I TA NO.1410/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2006-07,DATED 28/07/2011, I N ITA ITA NO.1271/AHD /2011 ITO VS. M/S.SWASTIK ASSOCIATES ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - NO.2163/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2007-08, DATED 13/09/2013 AND IN ITA NO.2525/AHD/2012 FOR AY 2009-10, DATED 05/09/2013. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH RE LIED UPON BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE AO IN HIS ORDER VIDE PARAGRAPH NOS.2.25 & 2.26 HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.25 TO SUM UP (A) THE SOCIETY IS A LEGAL ENTITY AND IT ACQUIRED THE L AND AND HAS TO BE RECOGNIZED AS THE OWNER OF THE LAND. (B) THE RAIPUR (RAKHIAL) COMMERCIAL CO.OP. HOUSING SOCI ETY LTD. GOT THE PLAN FOR THE HOUSING PROJECT APPROVED FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AS OWNER OF THE LAND ON WHICH HE PROJECT WAS TO COME UP. (C) IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED TH E SOCIETY OR THE SOCIETY APPROACHED THE ASSESSEE FOR CONSTRUCTIO N. (D) THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE SOCIETY IS THE PRINCIPAL AND THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR SATISFYING ALL THE INGREDI ENTS OF THE CONTRACT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. (E) THEREFORE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A M ERE BUILDER WHO HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SOCIETY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT AS PER THE APPROVAL OBTAINED BY THE SOCIETY FOR CONSTRUCTION ON THE LAND OWNED BY THE S OCIETY. (F) IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE D EVELOPER OF THE PROJECT AS IT IS NOT THE DESIGNER, CREATOR AND OWNE R OF THE HOUSING PROJECT. (G) THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MERE BU ILDER AND DOES NOT SATISFY THE PRIMARY REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST DEVELOP AND BUILD A HOUSING PROJECT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SIMPLY DONE THE WORK OF CIVIL CONSTRUC TION RELATED TO THE HOUSING PROJECT (AS PER THE AGREEMENT ENTERE D WITH THE SOCIETY) THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(1) AS PER THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO THE SECTION 80IB BY THE FINANCE ACT 2009 W.E.F. 1.4.2001 WHICH IS REPRODUCE D BELOW. ITA NO.1271/AHD /2011 ITO VS. M/S.SWASTIK ASSOCIATES ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - EXPLANATION - FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HER EBY DECLARED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL APPLY T O ANY UNDERTAKING WHICH EXECUTES THE HOUSING PROJECT AS A WORKS CONTR ACT AWARDED BY ANY PERSON (INCLUDING THE CENTRAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT). 2.26 IT IS, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. 1. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BOTH DEVELOPER AND BUILDER AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10). ASSESSEE IS NOT A DEVELOPER BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONCEPTUALIZE AND OWN THE PROJECT IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND THE APPRO VAL WAS NOT ISSUED TO IT BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. 2. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO THE PROJECT BY A DEVE LOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE LAND OWNER AND CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE AS PE R THE AGREEMENT AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY A CONTRACTOR FOR T HE PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SOLD ANY UNIT TO THE PURCH ASER BUT THE SOCIETY HAS EXECUTED THE SALE DEEDS AS A SELLER AND THE ASS ESSEE JOINED ONLY AS A CONFIRMING PARTY TO THE TRANSACTION. THIS ALSO PRO VES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MERELY A CONTRACTOR/AGENT OF THE SOCIETY. 4. AS PER THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 80IB BY THE FIN ANCE ACT 2009, A WORKS CONTRACTOR WHO EXECUTES THE WORK AWARDED BY A NY PERSON IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB. ANY PERSON IN CLUDES THE RAIPUR (RAKHIAL) COMMERCIAL CO.OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., W HICH IS A LEGAL ENTITY. 6.1. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) DECIDED THIS ISSUE FOLL OWING THE EARLIER ORDER IN AY 2008-09 VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.7 OF HIS OR DER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 7. AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IT IS SEE N THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THIS YEAR ARE SAME AS WER E IN AY 2006-07 AND AY 2007-08 WHEN 80IB(10) DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED B Y THE AO. AS THE FACTS ARE SAME THIS YEAR PLACING RELIANCE ON THE OR DER PASSED BY ME IN THE AY 2006-07 DATED 15.3.2010 AND AY 2007-08 DATED 27.04.2010 THE ITA NO.1271/AHD /2011 ITO VS. M/S.SWASTIK ASSOCIATES ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW 80IB(10) TO THE APPELLANT I N THE PRESENT AY ALSO. 6.2. WE ALSO FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1410 /AHD/2010 FOR AY 2006-07, VIDE ORDER DATED 28/07/2011, HAS HELD AS U NDER:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH. W E HAVE ALSO PERUSED AN ORDER OF ITAT BENCH D AHMEDABAD PRO NOUNCED IN THE BUNCH OF CASES, NAMELY M/S. SHREEJI DEVELOPERS AT SL.NO.1 BEARING ITA NO.1650/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ORDER DATED 06/08/2010 WHEREIN THE DECISIONS OF THIS VERY BENCH PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF M/S.SHAKTI CORPORATION (SUPRA) AND M /S.RADHE DEVELOPERS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND FOLLOWED. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION, LD.AR MR.P.M.MEHTA HAS ALSO D RAWN OUR ATTENTION IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE BASIC FACTS OF THE CASE. HE HAS INFORMED THAT A PROJECT KNOWN AS SWASTIK BUNGALOWS WAS DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY RAIPUR COMMERCIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ALL DEVELOP MENT RIGHTS AND THE LAND WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD TO DEVELOP THE PROJECT AT ITS OWN COST AND RISK AS PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. LD.AR HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON THE YEAR-WISE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT OF T HE PROJECT, SUCH AS BUILDING EXPENSES, LABOUR EXPENSES, BUILDING MAT ERIAL PURCHASED, ETC. WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN REF LECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OF THE SOCIETY. IT WAS ALSO DEMONSTRATED THAT THE S ALE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF SALE OF EACH UNIT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CUSTOMERS. AS FAR AS THE SALES WERE CONCERNE D, THE ASSESSEE WAS HANDLING THE SAME AND NOT ACTED AS A COMMISSION AGENT DEALING WITH THE CUSTOMERS ON BEHALF OF THE LAND-OW NER. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND THE FACTUAL FINDING GIVEN BY LD.CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT AND IN A WAY PAID THE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT TO THE CO-OP. SOCIETY CLAIME D TO BE TOWARDS THE COST OF LAND, THEREFORE, ALL THESE FACTS THUS I NDICATE THAT THE AFORE CITED DECISIONS OF THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCHES DO APPLY ON THE FACTS OF THIS APPEAL. THEREFORE, FOL LOWING THESE DECISIONS, WE FIND NO FORCE IN THE GROUND OF THE R EVENUE AND DISMISSED THE SAME. ITA NO.1271/AHD /2011 ITO VS. M/S.SWASTIK ASSOCIATES ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - 6.3. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2163/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2007-08, VIDE ORDER DATED 13/09/2013, HAS HELD A S UNDER: 3. FURTHER WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT FOR A.Y. 20 09-10 AS WELL; THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR BY ITAT C BENCH AHMEDABAD IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE AN ORDE R DATED 5/9/2013 TITLED AS ITO WARD-9(1), AHMEDABAD VS. M/S .SWASTIK ASSOCIATES IN ITA NO.2525/AHD/2012 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 , IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY AND HAS PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A), AND AL SO PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT, AHM EDABAD IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6-07 DATED 28.07.2011 (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE UNDER S ECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IS COVERED IN FAVOUR FO THE ASS ESSEE, WHO IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT WIT H THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER A.Y. 2006-07 DATED 28.07.2011(SUPRA). THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITION REQUIRED FOR CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE AC T FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. HE HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN RADHE DEVELOPERS, 341 ITR 404 , AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUN D OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4. SINCE, THE ISSUE OF 80IB(10) NOW STOOD RESOLVED IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR CONSISTENTLY BY THE ORDERS OF THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCHES, THEREFORE, ON THE SAME LINES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE VIEW TAKEN BY LE ARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. RESULTANTL Y, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1271/AHD /2011 ITO VS. M/S.SWASTIK ASSOCIATES ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - 6.4. WE ALSO FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2525/AHD/2012 FOR AY 2009-10, VIDE ORDER DATE 05/09/2013, HAS HELD AS UN DER:- 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY AND HAS PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A), AND AL SO PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT, AHMEDAB AD IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6-07 DATED 28.07.2011(SUPRA). WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE UNDER SE CTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WH O IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT WITH TH E DECISION OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EA RLIER ASST.YEAR 2006-2007 DATED 28.07.2011(SUPRA). THE C IT(A) HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE AC T FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. HE HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN RADHE DEVELOPERS, 341 ITR 404 , AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUN D OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF TH E CASE FOR AYS 2006- 07, 2007-08 & 2009-10 AND THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINT ED OUT ANY CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS YEAR, THEREF ORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NOS.1410/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2006-07, IN ITA NO.2163/AH D/2010 FOR AY 2007-08 AND IN ITA NO.2525/AHD/2012 FOR AY 2009-10 (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A ), THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, GROUND NOS.1 & 2 ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.1271/AHD /2011 ITO VS. M/S.SWASTIK ASSOCIATES ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - 8. GROUND NOS.3 & 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE REQUIRE N O INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 9. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) '# ( T.R. MEENA ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/ 05 /2014 ..&, .&../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS '4 0 -7 8'7( '4 0 -7 8'7( '4 0 -7 8'7( '4 0 -7 8'7(/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ), / THE APPELLANT 2. -.), / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 9() / THE CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD 5. 7: -& , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :;' <1 / GUARD FILE. '4& '4& '4& '4& / BY ORDER, .7 - //TRUE COPY// = == =/ // / * * * * ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 26.5.14(DICTATION-PAD 8-PAGE S ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 26.5.14 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.30.5.14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 30.5.14 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