Shri Nachiket Bajaria, Baroda V. The ACIT.,Circle-4, Baroda

ITA 2396/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63312 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Wrong claim; Condonation of delay; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 246

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, VP AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALAN KAMONY, AM) ITA NO. 2396/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2005-06 SHRI NACHIKET BABUBHAI BJARIA, 1, PRAKASH COLONY, JETALPUR, BARODA P. A. NO. AHGPB 5822 J VS THE A. C. I. T., CIRCLE-2 (2), BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI M. J. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAHUL KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 13-12-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:- 21-12-2012 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT( A)-III, BARODA IN APPEAL NO. CAB/III/264/09-10 DATED 07-04-2008, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, PASSED U/S 250 READ WITH SECTION 271(1) (C ) OF THE IT ACT. 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF SIX DAYS IN FILING THIS AP PEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 23 RD JULY, 2010 REQUESTED FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. THE GIST OF THE LETTER IS REPRODUCED HEREIN UNDER FOR R EFERENCE: ITA NO.2396/AHD/2010 (AY: 2005-06) SHRI NACHIKET BABUBHAI BAJARIA VS ACIT, CIR 2(2), B ARODA 2 REG: CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL U/S 253 OF MR. NACHIKET BAJARIA, PAN: AHGPB 5822J FOR A. Y. 2005-0 6. THE ASSESSEE, APPLICANT IS ENCLOSING HIS APPEAL U/S 253 OF THE INCOME TAX, ACT, 1961 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, VADODARA PASSED U/S 246 (2 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 10961 RELATING TO THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005- 06. THE APPEAL ORDER AGAINST THE PENALTY U/S 271 (1 ) (C) RECEIVED ON 18-05-2010. IT COULD NOT UNFORTUNATELY BE FILED ON TIME AS THE OFFICE BEARER OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BEING UNWELL AND UNFIT FOR THE COMPILATION OF THE SAME. MEDICAL CERTIFICATES FOR T HE SAME ARE ATTACHED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. IT IS THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL MAY BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL TREATED AS FILED WITHIN THE ALLOWED TIME. 3. CONSIDERING THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEING A SHORT PERIOD OF SIX DAYS, WE HEREBY TREAT THE SAME TO BE ACCEPTABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION. 4. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR ELABORATE GR OUNDS IN HIS APPEAL THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE RELATES TO CONFIRMING OF PENALTY OF RS.1,46,000/- LEVIED U/S 271 (1) ( C) OF THE ACT. 5. BRIEF FACTS:- THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGA GED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOM E SHOWING INCOME OF RS.46,67,190/- U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT ON 28-10-2005 ALONG WITH TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S 44AB ACCOMPANIED WITH BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143 (1) OF TH E ACT AND ASSESSMENT ITA NO.2396/AHD/2010 (AY: 2005-06) SHRI NACHIKET BABUBHAI BAJARIA VS ACIT, CIR 2(2), B ARODA 3 WAS FINALIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 29 TH SEPTEMBER, 2007 WHEREIN THE LEARNED AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.4,32,688/- BY DISALLOWING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF RS.1,53,300/- AND RS.2,79,389/- RESPECTIVELY ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE EXPENSES AND INTEREST CHARGES WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: ON PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, IT IS BEING NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLA IMED BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS.1,53,300/- AND INTEREST CHARGES OF R S.2,79,389/- FROM THE INCOME OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, VIDE THIS OFFICE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 1 .8.2007, THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO FURNISHED DETAILS OF BROK ERAGE EXPENSES CLAIMED AT RS.1,53,299/- AND JUSTIFICATION FOR ITS CLAIM FR OM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. IN THE SAME QUESTIONNAIRE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO AS KED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF INTEREST CHARGES AT RS.2,79,389/- AND JU STIFICATION FOR ITS CLAIM FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. IN RESPONSE TO THE A BOVE, THE ASSESSEES AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE VIDE ITS SUBMISSION DATED 10.09.2007 HAS SUBMITTED IN THIS REGARD AS UNDER:- 11. PLEASE NOTE THAT BROKERAGE ACCOUNTED IN THE BO OKS IS TOWARDS STT AND SERVICE TAX AND WRONGLY CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS ON SOU-MOTO RECTIFIED AND SELF ASSESSMENT TAX ALONG WITH INTERE ST UP TO AUGUST, 2007 END WERE PAID FOR SUCH WRONG DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ERRONEOUSLY. 5.1 THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THE ABOVE MIS TAKE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS REVISED HIS COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND PAID THE TAX THEREON ALONG WITH INTEREST U/S. 234B AND 234C OF THE I. T. ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE AND INTEREST EXPENSES TOTALING TO RS.4,32 ,689/- IS HEREBY DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271 (1) (C) OF THE I. T. A CT HAS BEEN INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 5.1 SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LEARNED AO LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.1,46,000/- U/S 271 (1) (C ) OF THE ACT, TREATING IT AS A CASE OF C ONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE ITA NO.2396/AHD/2010 (AY: 2005-06) SHRI NACHIKET BABUBHAI BAJARIA VS ACIT, CIR 2(2), B ARODA 4 RELEVANT PARA OF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE LE ARNED AO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR REFEREN CE: 5. DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION IN R ESPECT OF THE ABOVE ADDITION, EXCEPT REITERATING THE SAME FACTS WHICH W ERE CANVASSED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. EVEN T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITI ON BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ABOVE WRONG CLAIM OF DEDUC TION OF BROKERAGE AND INTEREST EXPENSES FROM THE INCOME OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS DETECTED ONLY AS A RESULT OF MAKIN G THROUGH SCRUTINY OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AND THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT COME FORWARD VOLUNTARILY TO REVISE THE RETURN BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HAD THE ASSESSEE R EVISED THE RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF SCRUTIN Y ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT CAN BE VERY WELL SAID THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NO MALA FIDE INTENTION AND REACH A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NO MALA FIDE INTENTION AND REACH A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS WRONGLY CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE AND I NTEREST EXPENSES FROM THE INCOME OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SITUATION IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. THE ASSES SEE HAS REVISED HIS STATEMENT OF INCOME ONLY AFTER POINTING OUT THE MIS TAKE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS AND HAD PAID THE DUE TAXES AND INTEREST ON THE WRONG CL AIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE AND INTEREST EXPENSES FRO M THE INCOME OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE SOLE MOTIVE BEHIND THE ASSESS EE IS ONLY TO EVADE THE TAX BY WAY OF CLAIMING WRONG DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE AND INTEREST EXPENSES FROM THE INCOME OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WILLFULLY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND FURNISH ED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,32 ,689/- FOR WHICH PENALTY IS LEVIABLE U/S. 271 (1) (C ) OF THE I. T. ACT. FROM THE SEQUENCE OF THE EVENTS NARRATED ABOVE, IT IS CRYSTA L CLEAR THAT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE PENALTY PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COULD PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM SATISFIED THAT IN THIS CASE , THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO.2396/AHD/2010 (AY: 2005-06) SHRI NACHIKET BABUBHAI BAJARIA VS ACIT, CIR 2(2), B ARODA 5 FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND CONCEALED HIS INCOME THEREBY COMMITTING A DEFAULT PUNISHABLE U/S. 271( 1) ( C ) OF THE I. T. ACT. 6. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARN ED CIT(A). HOWEVER THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LEARNED AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE GIVEN MY CAREFULLY CONSIDERATION TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. BEFORE THE AO AT TH E TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHERE THE AO HAD RAISED A P OINTED QUARRY, THE APPELLANT ADMITTED AN INCORRECT CLAIM W AS MADE FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS THE CLAIM WAS NOT ALLOWA BLE LEGALLY OR FACTUALLY. DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TH E AO ALSO IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE INCORRECT CLAIM WAS MADE DUE TO O VER SIGHT. BEFORE ME, HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLANT PROCEED INGS, THE APPELLANT HAS CHANGED THE STANCE AND HAS ARGUED THA T IT HAD CORRECTLY MADE THE CLAIM AND THERE WAS NO MISTAKE I N MAKING SUCH A CLAIM AND THAT THE TAX WAS PAID ON THIS AMOUNT TO A VOID LITIGATION. THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IS STRANGE IN SEVER AL RESPECT. IF THE CLAIM WAS BONA FIDE THERE WAS NO REASON TO ADMIT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE THE AO THAT IT HAD MADE MISTAKE I N MAKING SUCH A CLAIM. BEFORE AO IT WAS ADMITTED THAT IT HAD MADE W RONG CLAIM AND THAT IT WAS DUE TO OVER SIGHT. IT IS TO BE NOTED TH AT BEFORE THE AO IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE CLAIM WA S A BONA FIDE CLAIM BUT IT IS PAYING TAX ON IT TO AVOID LITIGATIO N BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE BROUGHT THE FACT OF INCORRECT CLAIM TO THE FO RE AS BEING DELIBERATE. BEFORE ME NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED AS TO HOW THESE EXPENDITURE WERE RELATED TO SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN . A MERE REFERENCE TO SEC. 40A IS NOT ENOUGH ON THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE WHEN THERE IS CONTRARY EVIDENCE AS BROUGHT ON RECORD AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THESE EXPENDITURES WE RE NOT RELATED TO SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. SECTION 40A PERMITS CERTAI N EXPENDITURE FOR WORKING OUT COST OF ACQUISITION. BUT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THESE EXPENDITURE WERE NOT RELATED TO CAPITAL GAIN INCOME AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD. SINCE THE APPELLA NT HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE ANY AUTHORITY TO COME TO A CONC LUSION THAT IT HAD NOT MADE A WRONG CLAIM DELIBERATELY, THE EXPLAN ATION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BONA FIDE AND IT REMAINS A VERY UNSATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE G ROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED AND THE PENALTY LEVIED I S CONFIRMED. ITA NO.2396/AHD/2010 (AY: 2005-06) SHRI NACHIKET BABUBHAI BAJARIA VS ACIT, CIR 2(2), B ARODA 6 7. THE LEARNED AR REITERATED HIS SUBMISSIONS MADE B EFORE THE AUTHORITIES AND PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED BY T HE LEARNED AO AND FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAY BE DELE TED. 8. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVE NUE AND PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAY BE UPHELD. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE LEARNED AO, DURING THE SCR UTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD UNEARTHED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS.1,53,300/- AND INTEREST EX PENSES OF RS.2,79,389/- TOTALING TO RS.4,32,689/- AS DEDUCTIO N FROM THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN NOT TO BE CORRECT, AFTER WHICH THE AS SESSEE WITHOUT ANY PROTEST RESORTED TO FILE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING HIS CLAIM TO BE WRONG AND OFFERED TO TAX ON THE AMOUNT SO CLAIMED. FROM T HE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE TAX WITHOUT FURTHER ARGUMENTS IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE FROM THE DEPARTMENT . HOWEVER, THE LEARNED AO LEVIED PENALTY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 1` SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE RETRACTED HIS STATEMENT MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED AO AND ARGUED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT HE HAD MADE BONA FIDE CLAIM IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME, AND Y ET PAID TAX ONLY TO AVOID FURTHER LITIGATION AND BUY PEACE FROM THE DEPARTMEN T. THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOT CONVINCED BY THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, CON FIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE PRIMA FACIE ONUS CAST UPON HIM TO ESTABLISH THA T HE HAD NOT MADE SUCH WRONG CLAIM BEFORE THE LEARNED AO THROUGH OVER SIG HT AND THERE WAS NO ITA NO.2396/AHD/2010 (AY: 2005-06) SHRI NACHIKET BABUBHAI BAJARIA VS ACIT, CIR 2(2), B ARODA 7 MALAFIDE INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO C ONCEAL HIS INCOME WITH A VIEW TO EVADE PAYMENT OF TAX. BEFORE US, THE LEARNE D AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE TOWARDS BROKERAGE AND INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS WHICH HAS TO BE ADDED TO THE COST OF THE ASSET. THE BROKERAGE EXPENSE OF RS.1,50,000/- CLAIMED AS EXPEN SE AGAINST SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS THE ACTUAL BROKERAGE CHARGED P AID TO THE STOCK BROKER FOR DIFFERENT PURCHASES AND SALES TRANSACTIONS OF T HE SHARES EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. TH EREFORE, THE LEARNED AR ARGUED THAT IT HAD TO BE ADDED TO THE COST OF ACQUI SITION OF SHARES. SIMILARLY, THE LEARNED AR ARGUED THAT THE INTEREST EXPENSE OF RS.2,79,389/- WAS INCURRED TOWARDS BORROWED FUNDS FROM BIRLA GLOB AL ASSET FINANCE CO. LTD. AND HDFC BANK LTD., AND SUCH BORROWED FUNDS WA S INVESTED FOR PROCURING THE SHARES, THEREFORE, THE SAME HAD TO BE ADDED TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET. IT APPEARS FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT WANT TO GO INTO THE INTRICACIES OF THE TRANSACTIONS DUE TO THE CUMBERSOME PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING SUCH EXPENSES WITH THE RELATED SHARE TRANSACTIONS AND, THEREFORE, HASTILY ADMITTED FOR SUCH ADDITIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED AO AND PAID THE TAX PROMPTLY I.E , BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. FURTHER F ROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HE HAD COME TO SUCH DECISION IN ORDER NOT TO PROLONG THE ISSUE AND BE A LITIGANT AND ALSO TO AVO ID THE CUMBERSOME PROCESS OF SORTING OUT THE EXPENDITURES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND FURTHER PLACING RELIANCE IN THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE APPEX COURT IN THE CASE CIT V/S. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD., REP ORTED IN 322 ITR 158, WE DO NOT FIND THIS CASE TO BE A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1) ( C ) OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DELETE THE PEN ALTY LEVIED BY THE LEARNED AO WHICH WAS FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE LEAR NED CIT(A). ITA NO.2396/AHD/2010 (AY: 2005-06) SHRI NACHIKET BABUBHAI BAJARIA VS ACIT, CIR 2(2), B ARODA 8 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21-12-2012. SD/- SD/- (G. C. GUPTA) VICE PRESIDENT (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT DEKA LAKSHMIKANT DEKA LAKSHMIKANT DEKA LAKSHMIKANT DEKA / // / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 14-12-2012/18-12-2012 DIR ECT ON COMPUTER 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: