Rakesh Aggarwal, Delhi V. ITO ward-48(1), New Delhi

ITA 2461/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1554 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Competent authority; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 234B; 292BB; 143(2); 48; 147; 148; 144; 139; 68

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 2461/DEL/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: I(2) + SM C-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEM BER, AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOU NTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2461/DEL/2019 ( A.Y 2010-11) RAKESH AGGARWAL 66, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING, K. G. MARG, DELHI PIN: 110001 PAN: AAWPA1372M (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-48(1) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. ANIL KUMAR JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 26/02/2019 PASSED BY CIT(A)-16, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PROVISION OF THE LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D THE PROVISION OF THE LAW THE LD CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 147 AND ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY ASSESSMENT FRAMED ALSO BECOMES ILLEGAL AND BAD IN L AW. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D THE PROVISION OF THE LAW THE LD CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD AO IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS NO VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS BEEN DATE OF HEARING 05.03.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15.05.2020 2 ITA NO. 2461/DEL/2019 ISSUED BY THE LD AO. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D THE PROVISION OF THE LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT APP ROVAL/ SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED U/S 151 IS NOT PROPER AND VALID IN LAW. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE LD CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AS SESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND H ENCE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN EYES OF LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 15,47,056/- U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AS UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENTS. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN, EVIDENCES AND MATERIAL PLACED AN D AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED AND JUDIC IALLY INTERPRETED AND THE SAME DO NOT JUSTIFY THE ADDITION MADE WITH PRESET M IND OF THE LD AO AND HIS ORDER IS BASED ON SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICI ON. 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE LD CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE VA RIOUS OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE LD AO IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT OR DER ARE IRRELEVANT, UNJUSTIFIED, BASELESS AND VITIATED IN THE LAW. 9. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN INITIAT ING PROCEEDING U/S 271(L)(C) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 10. THAT THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234A, 234B & 234C IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS IN RECEIPT OF INFORMAT ION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH AGGREGATING TO RS. 10,62,000/- OR MO RE WITH A BANK. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2010-11. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER RECORDING REASONS AND AFTER SEEKI NG APPROVAL BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS. HOWEVER, NO ONE ATTENDED IN RESPONSE TO STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY PASSED A BEST JUD GMENT ASSESSMENT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE AN 3 ITA NO. 2461/DEL/2019 ADDITION OF RS.15,46,076/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 68 HOLDING THAT THE SAID DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS /CREDITS MADE IN VIJAYA BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE. 5. AT FIRST THE LD. AR MADE SUBMISSION CHALLENGING THE PROCEEDINGS INITATED U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THUS, AS REGAR DS TO GROUND NO. 2, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PROCEEDI NG U/S 147 HAS BEEN INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 10,62,000/- IN A BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASES OF THE DELHI TRIBUNAL WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WILL NOT CONSTITUTE AN INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THIS INFORMATION MAY BE TRE ATED AS A REASON TO SUSPECT ONLY AND ON THE BASIS OF THIS INFORMATION IT CANNOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. T HE DECISIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. TAJENDER KUMAR GHAI VS. IT0 IN ITA NO. 970,971/DEL /2017. 2. HAMEEDA BEGUM VS. ITO (ITA NO. 7403/DEL/2018] (NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE OF THE ENQUIRY LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE) 3. SAURABH SAINI VS. ITO (ITA NO. 6003/DEL/2018) 4. BIR BAHADUR SINGH SIJWALI VS. ITO (ITA NO.3814/DEL /2011) THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ENQUIRY LETTE R ISSUED TO ASK FOR THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT VALID IN THE EYES OF THE LAW AS AT THAT TIME NO PROCEEDING WAS PENDING. THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO RESPOND TO THIS INVALID AND HONEST SO CALLED LETTER OF ENQUIRY. 6. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 ARE VALID AND AS PER THE LAW. THE RELIANCE MADE BY THE LD. AR UPON THE DECISIONS ARE NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE 4 ITA NO. 2461/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE INFORM ATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE PROPER REASONING HAS BEEN RECORDED AFTER TAKING NECESSARY APPROVAL AS PER THE MANDATE OF SECTION 14 7 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LD. AR COULD NOT POINT OUT THAT THERE IS LACK O F REASONING OR NO NECESSARY APPROVAL TAKEN FROM THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES. THE CAS E LAWS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR ALSO FACTUALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT CASE A S IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF SECTION 148 NOTICE AND HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DETAILS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS RELATES TO CASH DEPOSITS. THUS, THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE RE- OPENING PROCEEDINGS. GROUND NO. 2 IS DISMISSED. 8. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 3, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ILLEGAL AN D BAD IN LAW AS NO VALID NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE CASE OF 148 PROCEEDING ALSO NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS VERY MUCH REQU IRED. AS PER SECTION 148(1) THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 1 48 IS TO BE TREATED AS A RETURN FURNISHED U/S 139 AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SH ALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY ACCORDINGLY. IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. SHRI JAI SHIV SHANKAR TRADERS PVT. LTD. IN ITA 519/2015 THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING TO ISS UE NOTICE U/S 143(2] IS FATAL TO THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT AND EVEN CANNOT BE CON DONED BY REFERRING TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT AS IT RELATE S TO WHEN NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BUT THERE IS A DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO SERVIC E OF NOTICE AND WHEN NO NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED SHELTER OF 292BB CANNOT BE T AKEN. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS JUDGMENT, THE JUDGMENT OF CI T VS. MADHYA BHARAT ENERGY CORPORATION WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED BY THE CIT WAS ALSO CONSIDERED AND PROPERLY DISTINGUISHED AS IN THIS CASE APPEAL WAS N OT ADMITTED ON THE QUESTION CONCERNING THE MANDATORY COMPLIANCE WITH REGARD TO ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 5 ITA NO. 2461/DEL/2019 143(2). FURTHER FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSITION RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: 1. ALPINE ELECTRONICS ASIA PVT. LTD. VS DGIT (WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. 7932/2010) BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. 2. M/S SAPTHAGIRI FINANCE & INVESTMENTS VS ITO (TC( A) NO. 159 OF 2006) BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT. 3. CIT VS RAJEEV SHARMA (336 ITR 678) BY THE HON BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT 9. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PERUSAL OF RECORDS, T HE LD. AR COULD NOT POINT OUT THAT THE NOTICE WAS NOT DULY SERVED UPON THE AS SESSEE. IN FACT, THE RECORDS SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE WAS SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE, B UT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ATTEND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH LEADS TO PA SSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THE RELIANCE OF CASE LAWS BY THE LD. AR WILL NOT HELP IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DEMO NSTRATE THAT THE NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED TO HIM AT HIS ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE R ECORDS. THUS GROUND NO. 3 IS DISMISSED. 11. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 4 AND 5, THE LD. AR SU BMITTED THAT APPROVAL/SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED U/S 151 IS NOT PR OPER AND VALID IN LAW. FROM THE REVIEW OF THE APPROVAL DOCUMENT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF WRITTEN THE SATISFACTION OF THE ADDITIONAL CIT AND PR. CIT. [AS THE ENTIRE APPROVAL LETTER IS COMPUTER TYPED AN D IN THE SAME FONT AND EVEN THE ALLEGED SATISFACTION OF THE CIT IS ALSO COMPUTE R TYPED]. THE ADDITIONAL CIT AND THE PR. CIT HAS ONLY SIGNED WHICH INDICATES THA T THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND WHEREAS AS PER SECTION 151, THE PR. CIT SHOULD BE SATISFIED WITH REGARD TO STATEMENT OF INCOME AFTER APPLICATION OF MIND. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT 6 ITA NO. 2461/DEL/2019 PUT HIMSELF INTO THE SHOES OF ADDITIONAL CIT AND PR . CIT. FURTHER, IN THE SATISFACTION NOTE NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT W HAT DOCUMENTS THE CIT HAS VERIFIED BEFORE DERIVING THE SATISFACTION. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: 1. M/S VIRAT CREDIT & HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. VS ITO (ITA NO. 89/DEL/2012) ITAT DELHI 2. SHRI AMARLAL BAJAJ VS. ACIT (ITA NO. 611/MUM/2004) ITAT MUMBAI 3. UNITED ELECTRICAL CO. (P) LTD. VS CIT (ITA NO. 258 ITR 317) HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT 4. PCIT VS. M/S NC CABLES LTD. (ITA NO. 335/2015) HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT 5. PIONEER TOWN PLANNERS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (ITA NO 132/DEL/2018) ITAT DELHI 6. SHRI GHANSHYAM VS. ITO (ITA NO. 238/AGRA/2018) ITAT AGRA. 12. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPROVAL WAS RIGH TLY TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE RE-OPENING AND THERE IS PR OPER REASONS GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THIS GROUND IS IN CONSONANCE T O GROUND NO. 2 WHICH IS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE. THUS, IN THE PRESENT CASE TH E INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE PROPER REASONING H AS BEEN RECORDED AFTER TAKING NECESSARY APPROVAL AS PER THE MANDATE OF SEC TION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LD. AR COULD NOT POINT OUT THAT THERE IS L ACK OF REASONING OR NO NECESSARY APPROVAL TAKEN FROM THE HIGHER AUTHORITIE S. THE CASE LAWS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR ALSO FACTUALLY DIFFERENT. THE APPROVA L IS NOT MECHANICAL BUT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WHICH DESCRIBES 7 ITA NO. 2461/DEL/2019 THE NATURE OF CASH TRANSACTIONS AND ITS RELEVANCE T O THE ESCAPEMENT OF TAX LIABILITY ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE CIT (A) WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE RE-OPENING PROCEEDINGS . GROUND NO. 4 AND 5 ARE DISMISSED. 14. SINCE, THE LEGAL ISSUES ARE DISMISSED WE ARE NO W TAKING UP THE APPEAL ON MERITS. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 1, THE LD. AR SUBM ITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BE FORE HIM. WITH REGARD TO ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, THE LD. AR P LACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: 1. ELECTRA JAIPUR PVT. LTD. VS. IAC (1986) 26 ITD 236 (DELHI) 2. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS MST. KATIJI & OTHERS 167 ITR 471 (SC) (WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATI ONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERV ES TO BE PREFERRED) 3. BONANZE STOCK BROKER VS. ITO (ITANO. 1002/DEL/2006 ) (IF THE EVIDENCE GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND IS ESSENTIAL FOR RENDERING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, THEN THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO B E ADMITTED). 15. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A), BUT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT ADMITTED THE SAME. THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE LOOKED INTO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCES WHILE ARRIVING AT THE PROPER CONCLUSION WHICH THE CIT(A) FAILED TO DO SO. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF TH E ACT WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SEEN ANY EVIDENCES WH ILE MAKING ADDITIONS. THUS, WE ARE ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFO RE THE CIT(A). WE FURTHER FIND THAT IT IS JUST AND PROPER TO REMAND BACK THE ISSUE ON MERIT TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR PROPER AD JUDICATION AFTER TAKING 8 ITA NO. 2461/DEL/2019 COGNIZANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPL ES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. GROUND NO. 1 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. SI NCE THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK GROUND NOS. 6 TO 10 WHICH IS ON MERIT OF THE C ASE ARE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. GROUND NOS. 6 TO 10 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 17. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF MAY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15/05/2020 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 9 ITA NO. 2461/DEL/2019 DATE OF DICTATION 13.03.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 16.03.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 1 5 . 5 . 2 0 2 0 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER