NAS Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Anand V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 2398/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6809 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ITA NO. 2398/AHD/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) NAS PACKAGING PVT.LTD. 6, ARYANAGAR SOCIETY AMUL DAIRY ROAD ANAND (GUJARAT) / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCN 0641 G ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI KARAN SHAH, AR / RESPONDENT BY : JAYA CHAUDHARY, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING 11/12/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/01/2019 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)9, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-9 /37/ITO WD- 3(1)(1)/15-16 DATED 27/07/2018 ARISING IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HERE-IN -AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 10.3.2015 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2011-12/ 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL. HE OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED TH E APPEAL FULLY ITA NO.2398/AHD/2016 NAS PACKAGING PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST .YEAR - 2012-13 - 2 - IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE HIM. I. DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS OF INTEREST RS.9,73,704/- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS OF INTEREST OF RS.9,73,704 /- AS MADE BY THE A.O. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHILE FAILING TO PROPERLY CONSIDER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY T HE APPELLANT AS WELL AS VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED U PON BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO BY SUSTAINING THE DI SALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF 9,73,704/- ONLY. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LTD COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING AND EXPORTS OF M ERCHANDISE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DECLARED INCOME BY WAY OF INTERES T UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YE AR HAS PURCHASED LAND AND BUILDING AMOUNTING TO 1,83,00,000/- DATED 30 TH JUNE 2011. THE ASSESSEE UTILIZED THE BORROWED FUND IN THE PURCHASE OF SUCH LAND AND BUILDING. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS LEASED OUT THIS LAND AND BUI LDING TO ITS ASSOCIATE CONCERN AND RECEIVED THE RENT AMOUNTING TO 13,05,000/- ONLY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.2398/AHD/2016 NAS PACKAGING PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST .YEAR - 2012-13 - 3 - 6. AS THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THIS LAND AND BUILD ING OUT OF THE BORROWED FUND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A DEDUCTI ON OF INTEREST EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO 9,73,704/- AGAINST SUCH RENTAL INCOME. 7. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED FOR MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES BUT DID N OT CARRY OUT ANY MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, THE AO OPINED TH AT SUCH LAND AND BUILDING HAD NOT BEEN PUT TO USE BY THE ASSESSEE. T HEREFORE, THE INTEREST PAID ON LOAN UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE OF SUCH LAND AND BUILDING NEEDS TO BE CAPITALIZED. THEREFORE, THE INTEREST EXPENSES CL AIMED AGAINST THE LEASE RENTAL INCOME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. ACCOR DINGLY, THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. 8. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LEAR NED CIT (A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT INTEREST-FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WHI CH WAS UTILIZED TO MAKE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE TO ITS CONCERN NAMELY M/S ANJ ARS HARIHAR ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD. 9. IT HAS DECLARED INTEREST INCOME AGAINST THE I NTEREST COST INCURRED BY IT ON THE BORROWINGS. THUS, THERE WAS NO DIVERSION OF THE INTEREST-BEARING FUND TO NON-INTEREST BEARING ADVANCE. 10. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO BY OBSER VING AS UNDER: ITA NO.2398/AHD/2016 NAS PACKAGING PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST .YEAR - 2012-13 - 4 - 4.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTI ONS, OBSERVATION OF THE A.O AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APP ELLANT. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE A.O HAS MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS . 9,73,704/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS OF INTEREST INCURRED DUE TO CAPI TALIZATION OF STOCK IN TRADE TO CAPITAL ASSET WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED TO THE COST OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. THE APPELLANT HAD FI LED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/9/2012 FOR A.Y.2012-13 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,63,990/-. THE APPELLANT HAS THEREAFTER REVISED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND DECLARED THE TOTAL LOSS OF RS.1,38,077/-. THE A.O HAS OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION NO MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCTION ACTIVI TIES HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT. DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION THE APPELLANT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSI NESS OF FINANCING. THE APPELLANT HAD ADVANCED LOANS WITH IN TEREST TO M/S. ADARSH PLANT PROTECT LTD. WHICH IS A RELATED PARTY OF THE APPELLANT. THE OPENING BALANCE OF THE DEBT WAS RS. 2,19,62,429 /-- WHEREAS AT THE END OF THE YEAR THE BALANCE WAS OF RS.37,27, 541/-. THE APPELLANT HAD CHARGED INTEREST ON LOAN FROM THE ASS OCIATE COMPANY AT THE RATE OF 10%. THE A.O HAS FURTHER OBS ERVED THAT ON 30/6/2011 THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED LAND AND B UILDING FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,83,00,000/-. THUS, THERE HAS BEEN A DECREASE TO THAT EXTENT FROM THE RECEIVABLES OF ADA RSH PLANT PROTECT LTD. THE A.O HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 13,6,238/- WHER EAS IT HAS INCURRED INTEREST EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.22,89,94 2/-. THE A.O HAS MENTIONED AT PARA-3.2 THAT THE APPELLANT HAD BO RROWED FUNDS FROM ITS LENDER ON WHICH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE O F 9% WAS PAID WHEREAS IT HAS CHARGED 10% FROM THE LOANS ADVANCED BY IT. THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,83,00,000/- WAS FUL LY MET BY THE APPELLANT OUT OF THE LOANS ADVANCED BY IT TO M/S. A DARSH PLANT PROTECT LTD. ACCORDING TO AO THE LOAN ADVANCED TO M /S. ADARSH PLANT PROTECT LTD. INCLUDED THE FUNDS THAT THE APPE LLANT HAD BORROWED FROM ITS LENDERS ON WHICH IT HAD BEEN PAYI NG INTEREST. FURTHER, THE A.O HAS OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR THE APPELLANT HAS REFLECTED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY FROM THE L AND AND BUILDING ACQUIRED FROM M/S. ADARSH PLANT PROTECT LT D. AS WELL AS IT HAS REFLECTED THE LEASE RENT THAT IT HAS EARNED ON THE SAID ACQUIRED PROPERTY. THE SAID PROPERTY ACQUIRED FROM ADARSH PLANT PROTECT LTD. WAS LEASED BACK TO ADARSH PLANT PROTEC T. THUS, THE A.O HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSET THAT WERE ACQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT WERE NOT PUT TO USE FOR ITS BUSINESS PURP OSES. ITA NO.2398/AHD/2016 NAS PACKAGING PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST .YEAR - 2012-13 - 5 - ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O HAS CALCULATED THE LOSS OF INT EREST OF RS. 9,73,704/- AND ADDED IT TO THE COST OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. THE LOSS OF INTEREST OF RS. 9,73,704/- WAS DISALLOWED AND AD DED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O THAT IT HAD GOT THE POSSESSION OF PLOT OF LAND AND FACTORY BUILDING IN DISCHARGING ITS INTER-CORPORATE DEPOSIT GIVEN TO ADARSH PLANT PROTE CT LTD. AND THEREFORE UP TO THE DATE OF SAID DISCHARGE OF LOAN THE COMPANY HAD RECEIVED THE INTEREST. HOWEVER, THE INTEREST PA ID ON ITS UNSECURED LOANS ARE IN COMPLIANCE OF ITS LIABILITY TOWARDS INTEREST PAYABLE. THEREFORE, THE COMPANY HAS NOT EXPENDED AN Y INTEREST IN ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AND THUS DOES NOT REQUIR E TO CAPITALISE THE INTEREST COMPONENT. HOWEVER, THE A.O HAS NOT AG REED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND MADE THE ADDITI ON OF RS.9,73,704/- BY DISALLOWING THE INTEREST LOSS. DUR ING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED T HE SAME REASONS WITH REGARD TO THE LOAN TAKEN BY IT BEFORE THE A.O. THE A.R OF THE APPELLANT WAS CATEGORICALLY ASKED WHETHE R THE BORROWED FUNDS ON WHICH INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID BY T HE APPELLANT WERE ADVANCED TO M/S. ADARSH PLANT PROTECT LTD. OR NOT? THE ANSWER WAS AFFIRMATIVE. THE A.R SUBMITTED THAT NO F UNDS WERE ADVANCED TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION AS M/S. ADARSH PLANT PROTECT LTD. WAS NOT ABLE TO REPA Y THE MONEY ADVANCED TO IT BY THE APPELLANT. THE ONLY WAY TO RE COVER OR PROTECT ITS FUNDS WAS TO ACQUIRE THE ASSETS AVAILAB LE WITH ADARSH PLANT PROTECT LTD. AND HENCE THE LAND AND BUILDING WAS ACQUIRED AT THE PREVALENT COST OF RS.1,83,00,000/-. THE REMA INING FUNDS ARE STILL RECEIVABLE FROM ADARSH PLANT PROTECT LTD. ON WHICH THE APPELLANT IS CHARGING INTEREST. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE TRANSACTION UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT WITH ADARSH PLANT PROTE CT THAT THE INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS WERE ADVANCED TO A RELATED PARTY NAMELY ADARSH PLANT PROTECT LTD. AT THE RATE OF 10% . AS THE APPELLANT HAS ACQUIRED AN ASSET WHICH IT HAS NOT BE EN TO PUT TO USE, IT WAS REQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT TO CAPITALIZE THE INTEREST COMPONENT OF THE BORROWED FUNDS USED FOR ACQUIRING THE ASSETS TO THE COST OF LAND AND BUILDING. THEREFORE, I AM O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE A.O HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE INT EREST LOSS OF RS. 9,73,704/-. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NOS.3 AND 4 ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. ITA NO.2398/AHD/2016 NAS PACKAGING PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST .YEAR - 2012-13 - 6 - 10.1. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT-A, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. THE LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE INTER EST COST HAS BEEN INCURRED AGAINST THE RENTAL INCOME. THEREFORE THE S AME SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE OWNED FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE INSUFFICIENT THEREFORE THE INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF DIVERSION OF BORROWED FUND SHOULD BE DISALLOWED. THE LD. DR VEHE MENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERU SED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION, WE NOTE CERTAIN FACTS AS DETAILED UNDER: SHARE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE: 1,00,40 0 RESERVE AND SURPLUS AS ON 31. 03. 2009: 12,94,006 TOTAL OWNED FUND 13,94,406 INTEREST-FREE BORROWINGS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS:1,27, 09,749 TOTAL INTEREST FREE FUND: 1,41,04,155 13.1. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN VERY CLEAR-CUT FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED THE BORROWED FUND FOR THE ACQ UISITION OF THE LAND AND BUILDING AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. IT IS ALSO UNDISPU TED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2398/AHD/2016 NAS PACKAGING PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST .YEAR - 2012-13 - 7 - RESPECT OF SUCH LAND BUILDING HAS DECLARED INCOME U NDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN DULY ACCEPTED BY THE REVENU E. THUS, IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THE INTEREST EXPENSES INCURRED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH LAND AND BUILDING IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AG AINST THE RENTAL INCOME. AT THIS JUNCTURE WE FIND IMPORTANT TO REPRODUCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24(B) OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER: SECTION 24 (B) WHERE THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED , CONSTRUCTED, REPAIRED, RENEWED OR RECONSTRUCTED WITH BORROWED CA PITAL, THE AMOUNT OF ANY INTEREST PAYABLE ON SUCH CAPITAL: PROVIDED THAT IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN SUB-SEC TION (2) OF SECTION 23, THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION SHALL NOT EX CEED THIRTY THOUSAND RUPEES: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE THE PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST PROVISO IS ACQUIRED OR CONSTRUCTED WITH CAPITAL BOR ROWED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1999 AND SUCH ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED WITHIN 'FIVE YEARS' FROM THE END OF THE F INANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH CAPITAL WAS BORROWED], THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTIO N UNDER THIS CLAUSE SHALL NOT EXCEED [TWO LAKH RUPEES]. EXPLANATION.WHERE THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED O R CONSTRUCTED WITH BORROWED CAPITAL, THE INTEREST, IF ANY, PAYABL E ON SUCH CAPITAL BORROWED FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED OR CONSTRUCTED, AS REDUC ED BY ANY PART THEREOF ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER ANY OTHER PROVIS ION OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE DEDUCTED UNDER THIS CLAUSE IN EQUAL INSTAL MENTS FOR THE SAID PREVIOUS YEAR AND FOR EACH OF THE FOUR IMMEDIA TELY SUCCEEDING PREVIOUS YEARS:] 14. A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISION REVEA LS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTE REST EXPENSES INCURRED BY IT AGAINST THE RENTAL INCOME. IN THE CASE ON HAN D, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,73,704 /- AGAINST SUCH RENTAL ITA NO.2398/AHD/2016 NAS PACKAGING PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST .YEAR - 2012-13 - 8 - INCOME WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 24(B) OF THE ACT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 15. THUS IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF THE INTEREST EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE RENTAL INCOME. SIMILARLY, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INTER EST-FREE FUNDS IN ITS HANDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,41,04,155/- WHICH WAS UTIL IZED AS AN INTEREST- FREE ADVANCE FOR RS. 99,56,515/- GIVEN TO M/S ANJAR S HARIHAR ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS SHOWN INTEREST INCOME AGAINST THE INTEREST EXPENSES INCURRED BY IT ON THE INTEREST-BEARING LOAN. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE CANNOT BE ANY D ISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES IF THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED INTEREST INCOM E AGAINST SUCH INTEREST EXPENSES. 16. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE CLAIMED THAT IT HAD INTEREST FREE FUND AMOUNTING TO 1,27,09,749/ ONLY. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS NOT DISP UTED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO INTEREST EXPENSE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SUCH B ORROWING. 17. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES IS WARRANTED IN T HE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THUS, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) AND DIRECT THE AO ITA NO.2398/AHD/2016 NAS PACKAGING PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST .YEAR - 2012-13 - 9 - TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM. HENCE THE GROU ND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 01/01/2019 SD/- SD/- (MS.MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AH MED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01 / 01 /2019 &.., .(.. / T.C. NAIR, SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ( ) / THE CIT(A)-9, AHMEDABAD 5. /01 ((*+ , *+# , ) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 145 6 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) $%, / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 24.12.2018 (WORD PROCESSED BY H ONBLE MEMBER IN HIS COMPUTER) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 24.12.2018 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.4.1.19 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 4.1.19 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