The DCITAnand Circle, Anand V. Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd., Anand

ITA 1389/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63217 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL H TALATI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 194C

Judgement Text

ITA NO 1389 /AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2007 -08 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AH MEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT JM & SHRI ANIL CHATUR VEDI A.M.) I.T.A. NO.138 9/AHD/2010. (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND. (APPELLANT) VS. EIMCO ELECON (INDIA) LTD., ANAND SOJITRA ROAD, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR-388120 ANAND. (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAACE 4645C APPELLANT BY : MR. T. SHANKAR, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : MR.SUNIL H. TALATI. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 29-10-12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-12-12 PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTURING MINING MACHINERIES FOR USE IN UNDERGROUND AS WELL A S OPENCAST MINES. IT FILED ITS E-RETURN OF INCOME ON 25-10-2007 DECLARIN G TOTAL INCOME OF RS.14,94,79,020/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTI NY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 24-12-2009 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.16,14,63,480/- AF TER MAKING VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES. ITA NO 1389 /AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2007 -08 2 2. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ASSESSEE CA RRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT (A). CIT (A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 2 6-12-2010 GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF C IT (A), THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. GROUNDNO.1 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.47,96,517/- WITH RESPECT TO PROVISION FOR WARRANTEE EXPENSES. 3. ON PERUSING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE A.O . OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED RS.47,96,517/- ON ACCOUNT OF P ROVISION FOR WARRANTEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS PROVI DING 12 MONTHS WARRANTEE TO THE CUSTOMERS DURING WHICH THE COMPANY HAS TO REPLACE THE SPARES IF THE GOODS WERE FOUND TO BE DEFECTIVE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD MADE PROVISION FOR WARRANTEE @ 0.50% ON SALES OF RS.95.93 CRORES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPANY HAD TAKEN THE BASE OF ACTUAL WARRANTEE EXPENSE INCURRED AGAINST THE SALES MADE DURING THE LAST 3 YEARS. THE AVERAGE WARRANTEE EXPENSES IN THE LAST Y EAR 3 YEARS WERE 1.08% AND ACCORDINGLY IN THE CURRENT YEAR THE ASSES SEE HAD MADE PROVISION @ 50% OF THE AVERAGE WARRANTEE EXPENSES A ND ROUNDED OFF TO 50%. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WARRANTEE CHARG ES ARE PROVIDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH AS-29 ISSUED B Y THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA. ASSESSEE ALSO RELIE D ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ROTORK CONTROL S INDIA PVT. LTD., 314 ITR 62 (SC).THE A.O. DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISION WAS IN THE NA TURE OF CONTINGENT LIABILITY AND NOT AN ACTUAL LIABILITY. A.O. WAS FUR THER OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISION @ 0.50% WAS NOT REALISTIC AND THERE WAS N O HISTORICAL TREND ITA NO 1389 /AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2007 -08 3 JUSTIFYING PROVISION AT 0.5%. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD T HE PROVISION FOR WARRANTEE TO BE IN THE NATURE OF CONTINGENT LIABILITY AND DIS ALLOWED RS.47,96,517/- DEBITED BY ASSESSEE. 4. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT (A). CIT (A) RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 HE LD THAT THE ESTIMATE/PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON CONS ERVATIVE SIDE AND THE PROVISION WAS FOUND TO BE RELIABLE. CIT (A) FURTHER RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ROTORK CONTROLS I NDIA (P) LTD., (SUPRA) HELD THE PROVISION TO BE ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. AGG RIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US AT THE OUTSET THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED T HAT THE PRESENT ISSUE IS FULLY COVERED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY THE ORDER OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.36 & 37/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006- 07. HE PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT. HE FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THE FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF EARL IER YEARS. 6. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER O F A.O. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF WARRANTY PROVISIO N WAS RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AN D THE ADDITION MADE WAS DELETED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL B Y HOLDING AS UNDER:- 2.3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES ITA NO 1389 /AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2007 -08 4 BELOW. WE FID THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOW COVERED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN T HE CASE OF ROTORK CONTROLS (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA). THERE IS NO D ISPUTE ON THIS ASPECT ALSO THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS YEAR REGARDING MAKING PROVISION IN RESPECT OF WARRANTY EXPENSES IS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. REGARDING THE ESTIMATION OF WARRANTY PROVISI ON ALSO, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAME IS NOT EXCESSIVE AS COMPARED TO THE A CTUAL EXPENDITURE ON THIS ACCOUNT. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 8. SINCE IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF EARLIER YEAR WE FIND NO RE ASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN THAT TAKEN BY CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN EARLIER YEA RS. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BEN CH AHMEDABAD IN ITA NO.36 & 37/AHD/2010 FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A). THUS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO.2 IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 29,62,200/-U/S.40(A) (IA). 9. A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYM ENT OF RS.49.37 LACS TO AAKAISH MECHATRONICS LTD. (AML) FOR MAINTE NANCE AND SERVICE OF ITS VARIOUS MACHINERIES AND ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ENTERED I NTO AGREEMENT ONLY FOR MAINTENANCE SERVICE CONTRACT WITH AML. THE ASS ESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS U/S. 194C ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO AML. A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY AML CANNOT BE HELD TO BE O F A ROUTINE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT. A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY AML WAS IN THE NATURE OF TECHNICAL SERVICES AS PER THE EXPLANATION-2 TO ITA NO 1389 /AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2007 -08 5 CLAUSE (VII) OF SUB-SECTION 1 OF SECTION 9. HE FURT HER OBSERVED THAT THE ELECON ENGG. CO. LTD., A COMPANY IN THE SAME GROUP WAS DEDUCTING TDS ON THE SAME SERVICES OF AML U/S.194J INSTEAD OF 194 C. A.O. RELYING ON THE BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.715 DATED 8-8-1995 WAS OF T HE VIEW THAT SINCE THE TECHNICAL SERVICES WERE RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194J WILL APPLY WI TH REGARD TO TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSE E HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX U/S.194J ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO AML THE AMOUNT PAID WITHOUT DEDUCTING TDS WAS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S. 40(A )(IA). HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED RS.29,62,200/- (3/5 OF RS.49.37 LACS) AN D ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT (A). CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HE LD THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE WHERE TDS THOUG H DEDUCTIBLE WAS NOT DEDUCTED OR AFTER DEDUCTION WAS NOT PAID TO THE CR EDIT OF GOVERNMENT. HE WAS FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THERE IS A DIFFE RENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE A.O. AND THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE CORRECT SEC TION UNDER WHICH TAX IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED, PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(I A) CANNOT BE INVOKED. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL PAYMENT O F RS.49.37 LACS, BULK OF THE PAYMENT WAS TOWARDS PREVENTIVE REPAIRS AND MAIN TENANCE OF MACHINERY AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FOR RENDERING OF TECHNICAL SERVICES IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION 2 BELOW SECTION 9(1)(VII). HE ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CI T (A) THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO 1389 /AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2007 -08 6 11. BEFORE US THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A .O. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE P AYMENT OF RS.49.37 LACS TO AML FOR MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE TO ITS MACH INERIES AND ALSO ENTERED INTO ONLY MAINTENANCE CONTRACT WITH THE SAI D COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS U/S.194C AT 2%. HE PLACE D ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH AML ON PAGES 16 TO 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT QUESTI ON NO.27 & 29 AND ITS ANSWER IN THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.715 DATED 8-8-1995 W HEREIN CBDT HAS CLARIFIED THAT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT WHICH I NCLUDES SUPPLY OF SPARES WILL BE COVERED U/S. 194C. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF CIT (A). 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT WITH AML WHEREBY AML WAS ENGAGED FOR PROVIDING MAINTENAN CE OF SERVICES FOR MACHINERIES AND EQUIPMENT, ELECTRICAL PARTS, MACHIN ERY AND EQUIPMENT AML WAS TO CARRY OUT PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE FOR ALL THE MACHINERIES AS WELL AS BREAK DOWN ETC. THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PAY RS. 3,75,000/- PER MONTH FOR REGULAR MAINTENANCE OF MACHINERY. OUT OF THE TO TAL PAYMENTS OF RS.49.37 LACS, RS.45/- LACS WAS TOWARDS PREVENTIVE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF MACHINERY. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TAX @ 2% AND MADE THE PAYMENT OF TDS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC .194C TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE GOVERNMENT. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY REVENUE. PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) ARE APPLICABLE WHERE TA X THOUGH DEDUCTIBLE IS NOT DEDUCTED OR AFTER DEDUCTION NOT PAID TO THE CR EDIT OF GOVERNMENT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW TH AT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. WE THEREFORE FIND NO REASON ITA NO 1389 /AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2007 -08 7 TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND THUS UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT (A). THUS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIRD GROUND RELATES TO NOT ALLOWING ADDITIONAL DEP RECIATION OF RS.4,65,600/- 13. A.O. OBSERVED THAT DURING F.Y. 2005-06 COMPANY HAD PURCHASED AND INSTALLED JUARISTI MACHINE ON 24-3-2006 FOR WHICH T HE BUYERS HAD TAKEN CREDIT FROM BNP PARIBAS AND MADE THE PAYMENT ON 1-2 -2006. THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON ACCOUNTING STANDARD AS-11 I.E. THE EFFECT OF CHANGE IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATE ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE O F CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, CAPITALIZED THE AMOUNT OF RS.23.28 LACS TOWARDS FOR EIGN EXCHANGE LOSS AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE OF LIABILITY IN F.Y. 2006-07 I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08.THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL COST SUFFERED/INCURRED/PAID EVEN IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS RESULTED IN INCREASE IN ACTUAL COST AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AS ENVISAGED UNDER SEC. 32(1)(II). A.O. DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE R EASON THAT THE MACHINERY WAS INSTALLED AND CAPITALIZED IN A.Y. 2006-07. ACCO RDING TO THE A.O. ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE IN THE YEAR WH EN NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY IS INSTALLED AND IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN ANY OTHER YEAR. HE THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION @ 20% ON RS.23.28 LACS I.E.RS.4,65,600/- CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS ADDITIONAL D EPRECIATION. HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT (A). CIT (A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER S EC. 43A, ADDITION OR SUBTRACTION IN THE COST OF ASSETS ACQUIRED FROM COU NTRIES OUTSIDE INDIA ITA NO 1389 /AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2007 -08 8 BECOMES PART OF ACTUAL COST OF THE ASSET U/S. 43( 1). HE THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS JUSTIFIED IN INCREASING THE ACTUAL COST DURING F.Y. 2005-06 BY RS.23.28 LACS IN F.Y. 2006-07. HE WAS FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF 20% IS ADMISSIBLE ON THE ACTUAL COST OF THE MACHINERY AND AS PER SECTION 43A ADDITION TO FOREIG N EXCHANGE ARISING IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR IS PART OF COST OF THE MACHINERY. H E THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S. 32(1)(IIA ) IS ALLOWABLE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE DEPARTMENT IS NOW IN A PPEAL BEFORE US. 15. BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT AS PER T HE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 32(1)(IIIA) THE MACHINERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED BY THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO BECOME ENTITLED FOR CLAIMI NG ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THE ASSESSE E HAD ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED THE MACHINERY IN F.Y. 2006-07 THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION OF SEC. 43A WAS NOT WARRANTED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 16. LD. A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT AS PE R PROVISION OF SEC. 43A, THE ADDITIONAL COST WHICH IS INCURRED AND PAID BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND IF SO CAPITALIZED RESULTS IN I NCREASE OF ACTUAL COST AND ONCE ACTUAL COST OF THE MACHINERY IS SO INCREASED, ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. HE THUS RELIED ON THE OR DER OF CIT (A). 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE COMPANY H AS PURCHASED AND INSTALLED JUARISTI MACHINE ON 24-3-2006 AND THE PAY MENT WAS MADE ON 1-2- 2006 I.E. IN A.Y. 2006-07.THE ASSESSEE HAD CAPITALI ZED AMOUNT OF RS. ITA NO 1389 /AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2007 -08 9 23.28 LACS TOWARDS FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS AT THE TIM E OF DISCHARGE OF LIABILITY IN A.Y. 2007-08. WE ARE OF THE VIEWS THAT IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR LANGUAGE AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA), ADDITIONAL DEP RECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO AN ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR WHEN PLANT AND MACHINERY IS IN STALLED AND IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN ANY OTHER YEAR. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE MACHINERY HAS BEEN INSTALLED IN A.Y. 2006-07 WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS DEBITED IN A.Y. 2007-08. WE THUS UPHOLD THE ORDER OF A.O. AND THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14 12 - 2012. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-IV, BARODA. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABA D. ITA NO 1389 /AHD/2010 A.YR.. 2007 -08 10 1.DATE OF DICTATION 29 - 10 -2012 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 23.11 & 13 / 12 / 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 - -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..