Shri Sanjaykumar Tikamchand Bucha, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer,Ward-2(3), Surat

ITA 2132/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94209 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA SINGHSR D R
• Assessee Lawyers: KETAN H SHAH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD .. , ( .) , BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL,VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2132/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SANJAYKUMAR TIKAMCHAND BUCHA C/O.KETAN H.SHAH, ADV. 9 TH FLOOR SAPPHIRE COMPLEX CG ROAD, NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD-380009 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3) SURAT % & ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ABQPB 9320 F ( %( / APPELLANT ) .. ( )*%( / RESPONDENT ) %( + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI KETAN H.SHAH, AR )*%( , + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NARENDRA SINGH, SR.DR -. , /& / DATE OF HEARING 28/07/2015 0123 , /& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07/08/2015 / 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)-II, SURAT [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 06/05/2014 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- ITA NO.2132/AHD /2014 SANJAYKUMAR TIKAMCHAND BUCHA VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING IN THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.12,86,987/- U/S.271(1) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961. 2. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE ADDITION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED AS LEARNED MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY DEEM IT PROP ER. 3. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE ANY GROUND(S) EITHER BEFORE OR IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEA L. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE 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 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) VIDE ORDER DATED 31 /12/2010. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH A BANK ACCOUNT NO.10011001005255 WITH PRIME CO-OP.BAN K LTD., WHERE HE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.37,75,0 00/- ON VARIOUS DATES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. THE TRANSACTION S WERE MADE NOT REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE EXPLANATION HAS GIVEN BY THE AS SESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE AO AND THE AO MADE ADDITION BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO R S.37,75,000/-. THE AO ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, THE MATTER TRAVELLED UPTO THE STAGE OF TRIBUNAL (ITAT B BENCH, AHMEDABAD) WAS PLEASED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO PASSED A PENALTY ORDER DATED 1 8/03/2013 THEREBY THE AO LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS.12,86,987/- ON ADDITI ON OF RS.37,75,000/-. ITA NO.2132/AHD /2014 SANJAYKUMAR TIKAMCHAND BUCHA VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - THE ASSESSEE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY OF RS.12,86,987/-. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED AT LENGTH TO BUTTRESS THE CONTENTION. UNDER THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JU STIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY AND CONFIRMING THE SAME. HE PLACED RELIANC E ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HA S RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. WHITEFORD INDIA LTD. REPORTED AT (2013) 38 TAMA NN.COM 15 (GUJ.) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBU NAL (ITAT B BENCH AHMEDABAD) RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI RUSTOM SORA B MEDORA VS. ITO IN ITA NO.2283/AHD/2012 FOR AY 2008-09, DATED 11/0 7/2014. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN QUANT UM PROCEEDINGS, THE TRIBUNAL WAS PLEASED TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO TH E EXTENT OF RS.14,19,919.88, HOWEVER, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPO SED ON THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH ITA NO.2132/AHD /2014 SANJAYKUMAR TIKAMCHAND BUCHA VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLO SED THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. HE HAD ALSO NOT DISCLOSED B ANK ACCOUNT NUMBER (10011001005255) TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY IS LEVIABLE IF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICUL ARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. H E SUBMITTED THAT IN THE GIVEN CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE SOUR CE OF THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AND BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER TO THE REVENUE AUTHORI TIES. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED I N LEVYING THE PENALTY AND CONFIRMING THE SAME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISIO NS AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSI ONS AS MADE VIDE LETTER DATED 06/05/2015 AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUND ER:- 1. THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST PENALTY ORDER PASSE D BY CIT(A) DATED 06.05.2014 WHEREIN THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(L)(C) IS CONFIRMED AS PER PAGE 4, PARA 7. THE AO HAS PASSED THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 18.03.2013 WHEREIN AFTER CITING VARIOUS JUDGMENTS, AS PER PARA 7 HE HAS LEVIED PENALTY FOR DEFAULT OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND THEREBY CONCEALED THE INCOME. THERE IS NO SUCH PROVISION FOR LEVYING PENALTY FOR THE DEFAULT AS MENTION BY AO IN PARA 7. THE ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO GUJARAT HIGH ITA NO.2132/AHD /2014 SANJAYKUMAR TIKAMCHAND BUCHA VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - COURT DECISION IN CIT VS WHITE FORD 38 TAXMAN. COM 15, WHICH HAS FOLLOWED BY AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2283/A/201 2 DATED 11.07.2014 IN THE CASE OF SHRI RUSTAM SORAB IN PAGE 4, PARA 4. THEREFORE, THERE SHOULD BE SPECIFIC DEFAULT EITHER INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND IT CANNOT BE BOTH. 2. THE AO HAS PASSED THE ORDER AND AS PER THE SAME ADDITION U/S.69A RS.37,75,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ONE BANK ACCOUNT NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUBMISSION BEFORE AO AS PER P.B. PAGE 1 AND 2 IN WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT, THERE WAS LOSS OF RS.56,99,475/- IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT CONSIDERED AND DISCLOSED IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENCLOSED XEROX COPIES OF BROKERS CONTR ACT NOTE, STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, P&L ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AO AS PER SUBMIS SION AT P.B. PAGE 2. THE COPY OF P&L ACCOUNT FILED BEFORE AO IS AT PA GE 3,4,5. THE XEROX COPY OF THE CONTRACT NOTE AND STATEMENT OF THE ASSE SSEE WITH THE BROKERS WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE AO AS PER P.B. PAGE 6 TO 194 . THE AO'S ORDER U/S. 143(3) IS AT PAGE 236 TO 241. AS PER P.B. PAGE 240, AO HAS STATED THAT, ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED UNSIGNED LEDGER COPIES OF BROKERS. IN THIS CONNECTION WE SAID THAT, ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED, PA N. ADDRESS OF ALL THE BROKERS AND THE STATEMENTS ARE COMPUTER GENERATED A ND, THEREFORE, NO SIGNATURE REQUIRED. THE AO HAS NOT ISSUED ANY SUMMONS U/S. 131/133(6) IF HE HAS ANY DOUBTS REGARDING GENUINENESS OF LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF NON DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THIS BANK ACCOUNT BECAUSE THERE WAS LOSS WHICH ASSESSEE DO NOT WANT TO SET OFF 'BONA FIDELY' AGAINST OTHER BUS INESS INCOME OF TEXTILE. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION U/S. 143(3) AS PER ORDER DATED 08.06.2011 AS PER P.B. PAGE 241 TO 250. THERE AFTER. ITAT IN ITA N0.1897/A/2011 AS PER PARA 14. P.B. PAGE 254 HAS GI VEN RELIEF OF RS.23.55,080/- BY CALCULATING 5% GP ON RS.37.75 LACS AND RS.1,88,750/- AND PEAK OF RS.12,31,169/- AND, THERE FORE, TOTAL ADDITION MADE IS OF RS.14,19,919/-. THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS IN PARA 13 HAS WRONGLY PRESUMED THAT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT, A SSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY INCURRED LOSS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT, A SSESSEE HAS GIVEN ALL THE INVOICES/STATEMENTS AND ADDRESS AS WELL AS PAN AS PER P.B. PAGE 6 ITA NO.2132/AHD /2014 SANJAYKUMAR TIKAMCHAND BUCHA VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - TO 194. THEREFORE, THIS FINDING OF ITAT IS FACTUALL Y INCORRECT. THE ORDER OF ITAT IS AT PAGE 251 TO 255. BEFORE ITAT THE CASE LAWS OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN SHILPA DYING WAS CITED AND CO PY WAS ALSO FILED IN WHICH IT IS HELD THAT, UNACCOUNTED STOCK FOUND D URING SURVEY CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST LOSS OF CURRENT YEAR. THIS DECISION IS ALSO NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT OTHERWISE THERE WOULD NOT BEEN ANY ADDITION SINCE LOSS HAS BEEN INCURRED. 4. THE HON'BLE AHMEDABAD BENCH IN A JUDGMENT D ATED 21.06.2013, UPON IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, REGARDING UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT CONSIDERED SALES PROCEEDS AND ONLY NET PROFIT RATE OF 3.5% IS APPLIED AS PER PARA 13 OF THE JUDGMENTS WHICH IS ENCLOSED HERE WITH AT PAGE 259 TO 263. THEREFORE, THERE ARE TWO VIEW OF AHMEDABAD BENCH O N SAME FACTS. 5. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT, ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN VARIOUS STATEMENTS, CONTRACT NOTE AND PAN AND' ADDRESS OF A LL THE SHARE BROKERS BEFORE THE AO, AO/CIT(A)/ITAT IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/ S. 143(3) AND, THEREFORE, DISCHARGED THE ONUS REGARDING ACTUAL LOS S INCURRED IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT AND, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE 'BONA FIDE' OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN DISCLO SED. ALL THESE EVIDENCES ARE AGAIN AS PER PAGE 6 TO 194. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SUCH QUESTION OF LEVYING ANY PENALTY U/S. 271(L)(C) THOU GH TRIBUNAL HAS PARTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 6. BEFORE TRIBUNAL ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON TH E FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS AND FILED IN A P.B. PAGE MENTIONED HERE UNDER WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED OTHERWISE THERE IS NO CASE OF APPLYING G .P./PEAK AMOUNT TO BE CASH DEPOSITED. - 60 ITR41 (SO. NOW AND ITAT P.B. PAGE 218 TO 221 IN WHICH IT IS HELD THAT, THERE CANNOT BE PEAK AND CHOOSE METHOD. - 325 ITR 316 (DEN AGAIN HELD THAT, THERE IS NO PEAK AND CHOOSE METHOD AS PER PAGE 222 TO 225. - 66 ITR 396 (PAT) HELD THAT, ADDITION BASED PARTLY ON RELEVANT AND PARTLY IRRELEVANT MATERIAL IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS PE R PAGE 226 TO 230. ITA NO.2132/AHD /2014 SANJAYKUMAR TIKAMCHAND BUCHA VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - 7. THE ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO CIT VS SANGRUR VA NASPATI (P&H), 4 DTR 166, IN REFERENCE TO UNACCOUNTED SALES, WHICH I S CONFIRMED BY TRIBUNAL BY APPLYING G.P. RATE, IT IS HELD THAT, TH ERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY PENALTY. THIS IS AS PER P.B. PAGE 199. 8. AS REGARDS CASE LAWS IN REFERENCE TO CONTENTIO N THAT, PENALTY AND QUANTAM PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE. IN THIS CONNECTION FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS ARE RELEVANT . - 265 ITR 25 (CAL) DURGA KAMAL RICE MILL - 249 ITR 125 (GUJ) NATIONAL TEXTILE - 278 ITR 354 (ALL) MATA PASAND - 221 ITR 661 (GUJ) BARODA TIN WORKS 8.1 LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS APPLIED PEAK AMOUNT AND ALSO G.P. RATE WITHOUT GIVING REFERENCE TO AND WITHOUT SUPPORTING ANY JUDGMENT OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT OR SUPREME COURT, ON THE CONTRAR Y, AHMEDABAD BENCH ITSELF HAS IN A JUDGMENT DATED 21.06.2013, P. B. PAGE 259 TO 263, PARA 13 HAS ONLY APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE. THEREFORE , THE ISSUE IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT OF DEBATABLE AND SEEMS THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION PARTLY ON ADHOC BASIC AND WITHOUT CONSIDER ING THE LOSS INCURRED, AT LEAST THERE IS NO QUESTION OF LEVYING PENALTY EVEN IN REFERENCE TO THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY TRIBUNAL AT RS.14,19,919/-. THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL IS PARTLY ADHOC IN NATURE. 5.1. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT TH AT NEITHER THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT DISCLOSED NOR THE BANK ACCOUN T NO.10011001005255 IN WHICH THE CASH DEPOSITS HAVE B EEN MADE WERE DISCLOSED TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE ONLY EXP LANATION FOR NOT DISCLOSING THE TRANSACTIONS ARE THAT THERE WAS LOSS IN SHARE TRANSACTIONS, THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REFLECTED THE SAME I N THE RETURN OF INCOME. BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS THAT WHAT ABOUT THE SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS WHICH WAS MADE INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY ABOUT THE CASH DEP OSITS NEITHER IN THE ITA NO.2132/AHD /2014 SANJAYKUMAR TIKAMCHAND BUCHA VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS NOR IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE TRUE AND CORRECT P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THE CASE IN HAND, IT IS TRANSPIRED FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 10011001005 255 ON VARIOUS DATES CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. HOWEVER, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE Q UANTUM PROCEEDINGS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS REDUCED THE ADDITION FROM RS.37,75 ,000/- TO RS.14,19,919.88. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARD S TRIBUNALS ORDER (ITAT B BENCH AHMEDABAD) DATED 06/02/2015 RENDERE D IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1897/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2008-09 (IN QUANTUM APPEAL) ENCLOSED AT PAGE NOS.251 TO 255 OF THE PAPE R-BOOK. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY ON T HE ADDITION IN SUM OF RS.23,55,080/-. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 7 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) ( . ) ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( KUL BHARAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 07/ 08 /2015 6/..-, .-../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.2132/AHD /2014 SANJAYKUMAR TIKAMCHAND BUCHA VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 9 - !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*%( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 789 : / CONCERNED CIT 4. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)-II, SURAT 5. ;< )-89 , / 893 , 7 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <= >. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, *; ) //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION ..5.8.2015(DICTATION-PAD 9+ P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..5.8.2015 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.7.8.15 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 7.8.15 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