The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi V. M/s. Hotel Sea View Pvt. Ltd., Nani Daman

ITA 1616/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8679 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 54; 144

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER !# I.T.A. NO. 1616/AHD/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI # VS. M/S. HOTEL SEA VIEW PVT. LTD. (HOTEL CIDADE DE DAMAN) 13/3A, SARVODAYA SOCIETY, TEEN BATTI, NANI DAMAN $ # % & # PAN/GIR NO. : AAACH 8791 G ( !$' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' # RESPONDENT ) !$') # APPELLANT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R. ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI TUSHAR P. HEMANI, A.R. + ,*-. / DATE OF HEARING 13/06/2017 /012*-. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22/08/2017 3# O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VALSAD, DATED 2 8/03/2013, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 200 9-10, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO.1616 /AHD/2013 ACIT VS. HOTEL SEA VIEW PVT. LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - I. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.32,93,376/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CRED ITORS. II. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.72,65,049/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXP ENSES BEING 25% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES. III. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A), HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.46,54,140/-, MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS. IV. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.8,42,915/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT S. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- IN THIS CASE, THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y.2009 -10 WAS E-FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NILL/- UNDER REGULAR PROVISIONS AND BOOK PROFIT OF RS.27,72,090/- U/S.11 5JB OF I.T. ACT. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT W AS FINALIZED U/S.144 OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF CO-OPERATIVE FROM THE ASSESSEE, ON 23/12/2011 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.72,28 ,940/- UNDER REGULAR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AFTER MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS. 42,18,126/-, RS.72,84,764/-, RS.46,54,140/- AND RS.8,42,915/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPENSES, UNSECU RED LOANS AND SUNDRY DEBTORS RESPECTIVELY. ITA NO.1616 /AHD/2013 ACIT VS. HOTEL SEA VIEW PVT. LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - 2.2 THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNN ING OF HOTEL. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE HAD BEEN GIVEN MORE THAN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN I TS CASE BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO AVAIL THEM. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REPLY TO ANY LETTERS OR STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT HENCE, THE ASSESSE E HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS STATUTORY OBLIGATION. THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT PRODUCED ANY DETAILS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE FINALIZED U/S.144 OF THE ACT. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.42,18,126/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.72,84,764/- (25% OF RS.2,91,39,055/-) AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. THE AO HELD CASH CREDIT OF RS.46,54,140/- FOR UNSECURED LO ANS TO BE NON GENUINE CASH CREDITS AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE AO ADDED RS.8,42,915/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) VALSAD. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS, A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR BY THE CIT(A) SO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULL OPPORTUNITIES TO SUBMIT ITS POINT OF VIEW ON THE GR OUNDS TAKEN IN THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPOR TUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED A REMAND REPORT BEFORE HONB LE CIT(A), WHO IN TURN DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.8,42,915/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS, THE ADDITION OF RS.46,54,140/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS, THE ITA NO.1616 /AHD/2013 ACIT VS. HOTEL SEA VIEW PVT. LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - ADDITION OF RS.72,65,049/- AND CONFIRMED ONLY RS.19 ,715/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. THE CIT(A) ALSO DELETED THE ADDIT ION OF RS.32,93,376/- OUT OF RS.42,18,126/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CRE DITORS. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER LEARNED DR RELY ON ORDER OF THE AO. SO FAR DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.32,93,376/- MADE IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE CONCERNED SAME HAS BEEN MENTIONED AT PAGE NO.3 & 4 OF ASST. ORDER, PARA 6 TO 6.2 AND CIT(A) HAS DEALT IN THIS MATTER AT PAGE NO.5 TO 7 A ND PARA 5 TO 5.3. SINCE ASSESSEE PLACED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE CIT(A), A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR AND AFTER CONSIDERING SUCH REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED CIT(A) CONF IRMED ADDITION OF RS.32,93,376/- AND DELETED BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.3 2,93,376/-(I.E. RS.42,18,126 - RS.9,24,750) AGAINST WHICH DEPARTMEN T IS IN APPEAL. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THIS GROUND IS IDENTICAL AS GROUND NO.1 OF ITA NO.1615/AHD/2013 FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08. AT THIS STAGE, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT AO HAD FURNISHED TWO RE MAND REPORTS VIZ. INTERIM REMAND REPORT DATED 08/02/2013 AND SAME IS PART OF PAGES. 19- 23 OF PAPER BOOK AND FINAL REMAND REPORT DATED 12/0 3/2013 AND SAME IS PART OF PAPER BOOK AT PAGES. 29-34. REJOINDER TO SU CH REMAND REPORTS ARE PLACED AT PGS.24-28 OF PAPER BOOK AND PGS.35-46 OF PAPER BOOK RESPECTIVELY. ITA NO.1616 /AHD/2013 ACIT VS. HOTEL SEA VIEW PVT. LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 5 - AT THE REMAND STAGE, AO CARRIED OUT THREE TYPES OF INVESTIGATION AS FOLLOWS SAME ARE PART OF PAGES.29 TO 34 @ 30 TO 32 OF PAPER BOOK: FIRSTLY, AO ISSUED SUMMONS TO FOUR MAJOR CREDITORS; SECONDLY, HE PROBED INTO OUTSTANDING SUM OF RS.22,0 5,405/- IN THE NAME OF SMT. DHANIBEN KALANBHAI TANDEL, PROP. DAMAN FISH CENTRE. THIRDLY, HE ISSUED LETTERS U/S.133(6) TO 54 PERSONS IN WHOSE CASE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING WAS RS.1000/- OR MORE. AS REGARDS FOUR MAJOR CREDITORS, AO FOUND NO DISCREPANCIES AT PAGE NO.29 TO 34 @ 31 OF PAPER BOOK AND CIT(A), HAS RIGH TLY DELETED ADDITION IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT OUTSTANDING IN THE NA ME OF SUCH CREDITORS. AS REGARDS OUTSTANDING SUM OF RS.22,05,405/- IN THE NAME OF SMT. DHANIBEN KALANBHAI TANDEL, DAMAN FISH CENTRE, CIT(A ) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF CREDITS APPEARIN G IN HER ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND DELETED THE OPENING BA LANCE OUTSTANDING AT THE START OF THE YEAR THEREBY CONFIRMING AN ADDITIO N OF RS.9,24,750/- AT PAGE NO.7 OF CIT(A)S ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT FILED AN APPEAL. AS REGARDS LETTERS U/S.133(6) ISSUED TO 54 PERSONS IN WHOSE CASE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING WAS RS.1000/- OR MORE, ALL THE C ONCERNED PERSONS COMPLIED WITH LETTERS BY ISSUED AO EXCEPT FIVE CRED ITORS AGGREGATING TO RS.1,15,632/- AT PAGE NO. 29 TO 34 @ 32 OF PAPER BO OK. HENCE, AO PLEADED FOR CONFIRMING SUCH SUM. ITA NO.1616 /AHD/2013 ACIT VS. HOTEL SEA VIEW PVT. LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 6 - AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ALL THE OTHER CREDITOR S HAD DULY COMPLIED WITH HIS NOTICE AND ONLY FOUR CREDITORS FA ILED TO REVERT TO AO. AGGREGATE BALANCE OF RS.1,15,632/- APPEARING IN TH E NAME OF SUCH CREDITORS IS MEAGER (APPROX. 2.74%) AS COMPARED TO TOTAL CREDITORS OF RS.42,18,126/- LEARNED AR FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN T HE HOTEL BUSINESS AND IT QUITE POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THE CREDITORS, N OT MAJOR ONES, MAY DEFAULT IN REPLYING TO AO'S NOTICE U/S.133(6). HOWE VER, CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTO, ESPECIALLY THE FACT THAT MAJOR CREDITORS HAVE POSI TIVELY REPLIED TO AO, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. ACCORDING LY, CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED ADDITION. LEARNED AR CITED A JUDGMENT 'CIT VS. BHOGILAL RAMJIBHAI ATARA - (2014) 43 TAXMANN.COM 55 (GUJARAT)' IN WHICH, IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT, EVEN IF GENUINENESS OF CREDITORS IS UNDER SERIOUS DOUBT, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 41(1). 4.2 SO FAR DELETING ADDITION OF RS.72,65,049/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES BEING 25% OF TOTAL EXPENSES ARE CO NCERNED IN ASST. ORDER SAME IS AT PAGE NO.5 & 6, PARA 8 TO 8.2 AND C IT HAS DEALT THE MATTER AT PAGE NO.8 & 11, PARA 7 TO 7.3. AO MADE A DDITION OF RS.72,84,764/- BEING 25% OF TOTAL EXPENSES OF R S.2,91,39,055/- FOR WANT OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. ITA NO.1616 /AHD/2013 ACIT VS. HOTEL SEA VIEW PVT. LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 7 - AT THE REMAND STAGE, ASSESSEE PLACED ADDITIONAL EVI DENCES IN SUPPORT OF SUCH EXPENSES. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SAME , AO STATED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES AGGREGATING TO RS.19,715/- ARE NOT ON RECORD AND HENCE, THE SAME M AY BE CONFIRMED AT PAGES NO.29 TO 34 @32 TO 33 OF PAPER BOOK. HENCE, CIT(A) CONFIRMED ADDITION OF RS.19,715/- AND DELETED RS.72,65,049/- AGAINST WHICH DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEA L. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PLACED ON RECORD SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF SUCH EXPENSES AND VERIFYING THE SAME, AO CONCLUDED THAT EXPENSES AGGREGATING TO RS.19,715/- ONLY HAVE NOT BEEN SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. TO THAT EXTENT, ADDITION HAS ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) AND ASSESSEE IS NOT IN APPEAL. ONCE AO HIMSELF IS ADMITS IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT EXPENSES AGGREGATING TO RS.72,65,049/- ARE BACKED BY DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCES AND CHOOSES NOT TO COMMENT ON THE SAME, IT IS NOT PROPE R FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO CHALLENGE SUCH ISSUE IN APPEAL. ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE ALSO DULY AUDITED AND SAME AT PAGES 46 TO 74 OF PAPER BOOK. SO IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN THE LIGHT OF THE A BOVE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED IMPUGNED ADDITION AND THIS GROUND O F APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1616 /AHD/2013 ACIT VS. HOTEL SEA VIEW PVT. LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 8 - 4.3 DELETING ADDITION OF RS.46,54,140/- MADE ON ACC OUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS ARE CONCERNED. SAME IS MENTIONED IN AO AT PAG E NO.6 & 7, PARA 9 TO 8.1 AND CIT HAS DEALT THIS MATTER AT PAGE NO.8, PARA 6 TO 6.1. AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.46,54,140/- IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED FROM THREE PARTIES, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- BARCLAYS BANK PLC RS.22,76,926/- GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. RS. 6,00,214 /- C.M. KOTAK RS.17,77,000/- TOTAL RS.46,54,140/- IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS FROM BARCLAYS BANK PL C AMOUNTING TO RS.22,76,926/- THE APPELLANT AT THE REMAND STAGE PLACED LOAN STATEMENT POINTING OUT THE LOAN AMOUNT SANCTIONED, NO. OF EMI S , OUTSTANDING BALANCE AFTER EACH EMI ETC. AO IN ITS REMAND REPORT HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE LO AN STATEMENT WAS JUST AN EMI WORKING, HOWEVER IT FAILED TO APPRE CIATE THAT THE APPELLANT PROVED THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF THE T RANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF SUCH CREDITOR. AO FURTHER FAILE D TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.22,76,926/- WERE ONLY ON A CCOUNT OF THE CLOSING BALANCE STANDING IN THE LOAN ACCOUNT WHICH REDUCED FROM THE BALANCE REFLECTED IN THE SAID ACCOUNT AT THE YEAR ACCOUNT O N ACCOUNT OF ITS REPAYMENT AND THUS NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT U/S.638 OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, C IT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.22,76,926/-. ITA NO.1616 /AHD/2013 ACIT VS. HOTEL SEA VIEW PVT. LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 9 - SO FAR AS ADDITION IN RESPECT OF GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.6,00,124/- IS CONCERNED AT THE REMAND STAGE, APPELLANT PLACED THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT ISSUED BY GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND THE AO IN ITS REMAND REPORT POINTED OUT THAT THE LOAN WAS IN THE NAME OF SHRI GOPALBHAI K. TANDEL (D IRECTOR OF THE COMPANY). HOWEVER, AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE GE MONEY HAS A FINANCIAL SCHEME WHERE PERSONAL LOANS, ARE SANCTION ED, IN THE NAME OF DIRECTORS IN CASE OF COMPANIES AS A FORM OF COLLATE RAL SECURITY. AO FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SAID LOAN WAS DISBURS ED DIRECTLY IN TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND ULTIMATELY REPAID BY T HE APPELLANT. AO FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE LOAN WAS U LTIMATELY USED IN RENOVATION OF HOTEL AND STANDS AS A LIABILITY IN TH E HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AND ACCORDINGLY NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HAND S OF THE APPELLANT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINIO N CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE SAME BE HELD SO. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 4.4 SO FAR DELETING ADDITION OF RS.8,42,195/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS ARE CONCERNED AND SAME IS MENTION IN AO AT PAGE NO.4, PARA 7 & 7.1 AND LEARNED CIT DEALT THE MATTER AT PA GE NO.8, PARA 6 & 6.1. AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.8,42,195/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS. ITA NO.1616 /AHD/2013 ACIT VS. HOTEL SEA VIEW PVT. LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 10 - AT THE REMAND STAGE, APPELLANT PLACED CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT LEDGER COPIES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS IF THE DEBTO RS. AO CONSCIOUSLY IN ITS REMAND IGNORED DISCUSSING TH IS ISSUE, AS A GENUINE DEBTOR CAN NEVER BE ADDED AS INCOME UNDER T HE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. DOING SO AMOUNTS TO ADDING THE SAME INCOME TWI CE. ONCE AO HIMSELF CHOOSES NOT TO COMMENT ON THE SAME , IT IS NOT PROPER FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO CHALLENGE SUCH ISSUE I N APPEAL. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELET ED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22/08/2017 SD/- SD/- ( ) 4 5 ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 22/08/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO.1616 /AHD/2013 ACIT VS. HOTEL SEA VIEW PVT. LTD. ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 11 - !'#$ %$' # COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !$' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 67- + 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. + 8- 4!5 / THE CIT(A)-VALSAD. 5. 9:;-67 !.!672 ! / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<=, # GUARD FILE. & ' / BY ORDER, (9-- //TRUE COPY// (/' )* ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COPY 1. DATE OF DICTATION 18/08/2017 (DICTATION-PAD 10 P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 21/08/2017 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. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 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