M/s Southern India Banks Staff Training College, Bangalore V. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

ITA 1408/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9422 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P K SRIHARI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 80G; 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1408(BANG) 2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) M/S SOUTHERN INDIA BANKS STAFF TRAINING COLLEGE, NO.9, SHANKARMATH ROAD, SHANKARAPURAM, BANGALORE-560 004 PAN NO.AAATS5632E APPELLANT VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), BANGALORE RE SPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : DR. P.K.SRIHARI, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 21-07-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 6-08-2016 O R D E R PER A.K.GARODIA, AM: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE LD. CCIT, BANGALORE DATED 29-09-2015 U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER; 1. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, HE LD. CCIT ERRED IN DECLINING TO GRANT EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE IT ACT, TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CCIT IS OPPOSED TO LAW IN THAT VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT SUPPORTED BY CASE LAW CITED HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND ITA NO.1408(B)/15 2 ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER PASSED IS LIABLE TO BE SET AS IDE, AS OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THE LD. CCIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLAN T INSTITUTION AS NOT ONLY SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURP OSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES C ARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT WERE TOWARDS EDUCATIONAL PURPOS ES OF THE BANKING STAFF AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPELLAN T HAD FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED U/S 10(2C ) (VI) OF THE ACT TO AVAIL THE EXEMPTION AS PROVIDED THEREIN. 4. THE LD. CCIT OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THOUGH VARIOUS OBJECTS PROVIDED IN THE TRUST DEED, THE APPELLANT HAD WHOLLY PROMOTED THE OBJECTS IN EDUCAT ING THE BANKING STAFF AND CONSEQUENTLY, HE OUGHT TO HAV E HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ELIGIBLE TO GET THE EXE MPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD CCIT OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE OTHER OBJECTS PROVIDED IN THE TRUST DEED WOULD ALSO RELATE TO THE PROMOTION OF THE EDUCATION AMONGST TH E STAFF AND WERE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED ISOLATED TO DE NY THE BENEFIT U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. 6. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPEAL, PRAYS THAT THE A PPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT EVEN THESE OBJECTS FOR WHICH THE OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED BY THE LD. CCIT ARE ALSO FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CCIT SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND HE SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO GRANT REGISTRATI ON TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF ITA NO.1408(B)/15 3 THE ACT WAS ALSO GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. A) CIT VS VIDYA VIKAS VIHAR, 265 ITR 489(BOM) B) CCIT VS ST. PETERS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, 385 ITR 66(SC) C) ECUMENICAL CHRISTIAN CENTRE VS CIT, 139 ITR 226(KAR.) 4. AS AGAINST THIS, LD DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CCIT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE REGISTRATION U/S 1 2A OF THE IT ACT IS DIFFERENT THEN GRANTING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(VI) O F THE ACT. REGARDING VARIOUS JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESS EE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE JUDGMENTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT C ASE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 6. FIRST OF ALL, WE REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CCIT FROM PAGE NO.2 & 3 OF HIS ORDER. THE SAME IS A S UNDER:- IT IS SEEN FRO M THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOC I AT I O N THAT T HE O B J ECTS O F TH E S O C I E TY ARE AS UNDE R : ( A ) TO ES T A BL I S H AND TO C A RRY O N TH E ADMIN I S TRATI O N A N D M A N AGEME NT OF SO UTH E RN INDI A B ANK ' S ST A FF TRAINING CO LLEGE (B ) T O P L A N , P ROMOTE A ND PROVID E FOR E DUC A TION A ND TRA I N I NG IN O PE R AT I O N S AND MANAGE M E NT O F B A NKING T O UND E RT A K E , O R GA NI ZE A ND FACIL I T A T E CONFERENCES , SEM I NARS , S TUDY CO UR SES , L EC TUR ES A N D S I MIL A R O THER ACT IVITI ES FOR THE PURPOSE O F TR A ININ G (C) TO PROMOTE AND CONDUCT R ESEARC H I N MA TTE RS PERTA I NING TO (I) IMPR O VEM E NT OF BANK ' S OPERAT I ONS ; (II ) EDUCAT I ON , TRA I N I R 1G A N D DE V ELOPME NT OF BA NKING PERSON N EL . (D) TO ASSIST BANK I NG INSTITUTIO N IN MATTERS ' S U ET; AS A P PRA I SA L P RO GRA MM ES , CONDUCTING MORALE AND PRODUCTIVITY STUD IE S , STREA M LIN I NG ORGANIZA T IONA L STRUCTURE AND TO REVIEW , FROM TIME TO TI M E , THE I M PACT OF EDUCATIONA L TRAINING AND RESEARC H ACTIV I T I ES AND OFFER S U GGESTIO NS FOR F I L L ING THE GA P S IN THE BANKING SYSTE M , (E) TO PROMOTE AND UNDERTAKE F ACULTY DEVE L OP M E N T P R OG RAM MES , TO ASSE S S A N ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF COMPETENT TRA I NERS F OR CONDUCTIN G ITA NO.1408(B)/15 4 TRA ININ G PR O GR A MM ES FOR THE PE R SONNE L OF BANKING I NSTI T UT I ONS , (F) TO MA I NTAIN L I A I SON W I TH BANKING AND F IN A NC IA L IN STIT U T I ONS A N D EDUC AT IO N A L BODIES FOR PURPOSE OF PROMOTING EDUCAT I O N AND T RA I NING OF PERSONNE L OF BANKING AND FINANCIAL I NSTITUTIONS , (G) TO PROV I DE CONSULTANCY SERV I CES UNDER ITS A U SP I CES O R THROUGH ITS F ACU LT Y TO BANKS OR ANY OTHER INSTITUTIONS OR I ND I V I DUA L S ON MA TT ERS HAV I NG A B EAR I NG ON PRODUCTION I N BANK I NG SERV I CES , OPTIMU M USE OF FI NANCIAL RESOU R CES O R ANY OTHER MATTER CONDUCIVE TO ECONOM I C BE T TERME N T . (H) TO D I SSEM I NATE INFORMATION ON MANAQEME NT K NOW-H O W BY U N DERTA KING AN D PROV I D I NG FOR THE PUBLICAT I O N OF J OU R NA L S , REPORTS , P A M PHLETS AND O THER LITERATURE A N D RESEARCH P APE R S AND BOO K S LN FURTHE RANC E OF TI L E OB J ECT S . (I) TO ESTAB LI SH AND MA I N T AIN LIBRAR I ES AR I D I NFO R MAT I ON S ER VICES , (J)TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTA I N REG I ONA L CENTRE S TO P R O MO TE THE OB J ECTS OF T H E SOC I ETY . (K ) TO I NSTITUTE AND AWARD SCHO L ARSH I PS , PRI ZES A ND M E D A LS IN AC C OR D AN C E WITH THE RULES . ( I ) TO MA I NTA IN C L OSE CO N TAC T W I T H O TH E R IN S T IT U T I O N S H A V I N G S I M I LA R OB JECTIV ES , E I THER WHOL L Y OR PART I ALLY , BY WA Y O F P A Y ME N T OF SUBS CRI PT I O N E NR O LM E NT . AS A MEMBER THEREOF , FISCA L OR O T HE R SO RT S OF AS SI STA N CE , A MALGAMA TI O N, COLLABORATION, CO-OPERATION AND IN ANY OTHER AY AS TH E SOCIETY MAY DEEM (M) TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND MANAGE HALLS AND HOS TELS FOR ACCOMMODATION OF THE TRAINEES. (N) TO DO ALL LAWFUL THINGS AS THE SOCIETY MAY DEEM FIT FOR ATTAINMENT OF ALL OR ANY OF THE OBJECTS. SECTION 10(23C)(VI) PROVIDES THAT ANY INCOME RECEI VED BY ANY PERSON OR BEHALF OF ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL IN STITUTION EXISTING SOCIETY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES A PERUSAL OF THIS SECTION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IN ORD ER TO QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION U/S 1023C(VI) THE APPLICANT UNIVERSIT Y OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SHOULD BE SOCIETY FOR EDUC ATION PURPOSES. FROM THE LIST OF OBJECTIVES FILED B Y THE APPLICANT , IT IS SEEN THAT THE OBJECTIVES RELATING TO PROVIDING APPRAISAL PROGRAMM E (CLAUSED) PROVIDING CONSULTANCY SERVICES (CLAUSE G) AND PRO MOTION AND UNDERTAKING FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ARE NOT STR ICTLY SPEAKING OBJECTIVES SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE. THE S OCIETY IS CONDUCTING TRAINING TO THE PERSONNEL OF MEMBER BANKS AND PROVI DING CONSULTANCY SERVICES THROUGH ITS FACULTY TO BANKS O R ANY OTHER ITA NO.1408(B)/15 5 INSTITUTIONS. THESE ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS ACTIVITIES FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. . IT CAN BE CO N STRUED THAT THE APPLICANT TRUST IS NOT SATISFYING T HE CONDITION ENVISAGED IN SECTIO N 10(23C) ( VI) THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE ' EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE S ' HENC E EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 CANNOT B E GRANTED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 . ACCORDINGLY , THE ASSESSEE ' S APPL I CATI ON FOR GRAN T OF EXEMPTION FOR THE ABOVE SAID PERIOD IS REJECTED. 7. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. C CIT, IT IS SEEN THAT HIS OBJECTIONS ARE REGARDING CLAUSE-D & G OF T HE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. AS PER CLAUSE-D OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WHICH IS ALSO REPRODUCE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WILL ASSIST BANKING INSTITUTION IN MATTERS SUCH AS APPRAISAL PR OGRAMMES, CONDUCTING MORALE AND PRODUCTIVITY STUDIES, STREAML INING ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND TO REVIEW FROM TIME TO TIME, THE IMPACT OF EDUCATIONAL TRAINING AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AND OF FER SUGGESTIONS FOR FILING THE GAPS IN THE BANKING SYSTEM. AS FOR CLAU SE-G, WHICH IS ALSO REPRODUCED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS TO PROVI DE CONSULTANCY SERVICES UNDER ITS AUSPICES OR THROUGH ITS FACULTY TO BANKS OR ANY OTHER INSTITUTIONS OR INDIVIDUALS ON MATTERS HAVING A BEA RING ON PRODUCTION IN BANKING SERVICES, OPTIMUM USE OF FINANCIAL RESOU RCES OR ANY OTHER MATTER CONDUCIVE TO ECONOMIC BETTERMENT. THIS IS T HE OBJECTIONS OF THE LD. CCIT THAT THESE TWO OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOC IETY ARE NOT FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES BECAUSE AS PER THESE OBJECTS, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WOULD CONDUCT TRAINING TO THE PERSONNEL OF MEMBER BANKS AND PROVIDE CONSULTANCY SERVICES THROUGH ITS FACULTY TO BANKS OR ANY OTHER ITA NO.1408(B)/15 6 INSTITUTIONS. HENCE, THESE ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE CON STRUED AS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. WE FIND FORCE IN THIS OBJECT ION OF THE LD. CCIT BECAUSE PROVIDING CONSULTANCY SERVICES TO BANKS CAN NOT BE CONSTRUED AS ACTIVITIES FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, NOW WE EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF VARIOUS JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESS EE. FIRST JUDGMENT CITED IS THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VIDYA VIKAS VIHAR (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, THE FACTS AS NOTED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ARE THAT THE DOMINANT OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS TO OPEN AND RUN COLLEGE OF POLYTECHNIC TO IMPART TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND ONE OF THE OBJECT S SHOWN IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIETY IS TO CONSTRUCT HOUSES FOR WEAKER SECTIONS, IF ANYTHING REMAINS SURPLUS AFTER INCURRING EXPENSES O N THE ACTIVITIES OF IMPARTING EDUCATION. BUT THIS WAS NOT IMPLEMENTED OR ACTED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE FINDIN G OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IS THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AS SESSEE AND THE INSTITUTION SOLELY EXISTED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND THE INDIVIDUAL OBJECT OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES FOR WEAKER SECTION S WAS NOT IMPLEMENTED OR ACTED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE PRESENT CASE, EVEN THE SO CALLED EDUCATIONAL OBJECTS ITSEL F INCLUDE RENDERING OF CONSULTANCY SERVICES TO BANKS AND THIS IS NOT THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO SUCH ACTIV ITY WAS UNDERTAKEN ITA NO.1408(B)/15 7 BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. THEREFORE, THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IS NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 9. THE SECOND JUDGMENT ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF THE H ONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CCIT VS ST. PETERS EDUCATI ONAL SOCIETY(SUPRA). IN THIS CASE, IT WAS NOT THE DISPUTE BEFORE THE HON BLE APEX COURT AS TO WHETHER THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS EDUCA TIONAL OR NOT. THE DISPUTE BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT WAS THIS AS T O WHETHER AN ASSESSEE INSTITUTION WHICH MAKES SOME PROFIT MEANS THAT IT EXISTS FOR PROFIT WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, OBJECTIONS OF T HE DEPARTMENT IS THIS THAT SOME OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AR E NOT EDUCATIONAL AND THEREFORE, THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX CO URT ALSO DOES NOT RENDER ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 10. THE THIRD JUDGMENT ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY HE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE JUDGMENT OF THE H ONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ECUMENICAL CHRIS TIAN CENTRE VS CIT (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE, THE DISPUTE WAS NOT RE GARDING EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C) BUT THE DISPUTE WAS AS TO WHETHER THE A SSESSEE COMPANY IS ENTITLED FOR AN ORDER U/S 80G OF THE ACT. IN THAT CASE, THE CIT LAID SOME STRESS ON THE USE OF THE EXPRESSION RESTAURANTS I N CLAUSE-3A(VI) AND THAT NO SPECIFIC REPLY HAD BEEN GIVEN IN THAT B EHALF. IT IS NOTED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ON PAGE-232 & 233 OF 139 ITR THAT THERE WAS NO RESTAURANTS AS SUCH WHICH WAS BEING RUN BY THE C OMPANY AND IN ITA NO.1408(B)/15 8 REPLY, IT WAS STATED THAT WHATEVER FACILITIES WERE GIVEN WERE ONLY TO BENEFIT THE INMATES OF THE INSTITUTION AND CATER TO THEIR NEEDS FOR FOOD ETC. THEREAFTER, IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT OBJECT CL AUSE-3(A(IV)SPECIFIES AN OBJECT TO UNDERTAKE FARMING. THEREAFTER, IT IS NOTED THAT THIS WAS ALSO EXPLAINED IN THE REPLY STATING THAT THE COMPAN Y HAD ABOUT 30 ACRES OF LAND AND WHAT IT WAS DOING WAS ONLY BY WAY OF KITCHEN GARDENING AND TO EDUCATE THE PUPILS IN THAT BEHALF AND EVEN THE GARDENING WAS BEING CARRIED ON IN BETWEEN THE BUILD INGS AND ONLY IN A SMALL WAY. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THAT CASE, ALT HOUGH SOME OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE BEING EDUCATION, BUT THESE OBJECTIONS OF T HE DEPARTMENT WERE ADEQUATELY REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE OBJECTIONS OF THE REVENUE THAT CLAUSE-D & G OF THE OBJECTS CLAUSE ARE NOT FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES COULD NOT BE REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OR TO OUR SATISF ACTION. HENCE, UNDER THESE FACTS, THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IS ALSO NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESE NT CASE. AS PER THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HAVE SEEN NONE OF THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS RE NDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 11. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT WE FIND FORCE IN THE OBJ ECTIONS OF THE LD. CCIT AS PER WHICH CLAUSES D & G OF THE OBJECTS OF T HE ASSESSEE SOCIETY ARE NOT IN RESPECT OF EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES BECAUSE THE SAME AMOUNTS ITA NO.1408(B)/15 9 TO RENDERING CONSULTANCY SERVICES AND HENCE, WE FIN D NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CCIT. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) (A.K.GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: BANGALORE: D A T E D : 26.08.2016 AM* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER, AR, ITAT, BANGALORE ITA NO.1408(B)/15 10 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S. .. 4 DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEB SITE .. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER DOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT . 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 11 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. 12 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORD ER