ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Fragrance Construction (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2547/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97029 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARWINDER KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: V S RASTOGI
• Keywords: Commercial expediency
• Section: 40A(3); 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO: 2547/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2008-09 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. FR AGRANCE CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. CENTRAL CIRCLE 23, NEW DELHI M-11, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI 110 001. (PAN AAACF1922H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO: 2314/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YEAR 2008-09 FRAGRANCE CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX M-11, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS CE NTRAL CIRCLE-23 NEW DELHI 110 001 NEW DELHI 110 001. (PAN AAACF1922H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. PARWINDER KAUR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY :SHRI V.S. RASTOGI, AR DATE OF HEARING :19.8.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .8.2015 O R D E R PER T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE AND REVENUE RESPECTFULLY AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 22.1.2013. TH E ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN EIGHT GROUNDS OF APPEAL. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. AR STATED THAT HE WILL NOT BE PRESSING GROUND NO. 1,2,3,6,7 AND 8 & THEREFORE TH ESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. REGARDING GROUND NO. 4 & 5 THE LD. AR SUBM ITTED THAT THESE GROUNDS INVOLVE TWO ISSUES NAMELY ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF ITA NOS. 2547/DEL/2013,2314/D EL/2013 ACIT VS. FRAGRANCE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. & FRAGRANCE CONS TRUCITON PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 2 LAND NOT ALLOWED BY AO AND FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUES IN THE CAS E OF GROUP COMPANY NAMELY WESTLAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. WAS DECIDED BY HONB LE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 22 ND AUGUST, 2014 AND IN THIS RESPECT REGARDING THE ISS UE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT LD. AR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 10. 10 OF THE SAID ORDER AND REGARDING THE ISSUE OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS LD. AR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 13 OF THE SAID ORDER. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR AND THEREFORE THESE ISSUES ARE COVERED IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT RELYING UPON THIS ORDER IN A NOTHER GROUP COMPANY M/S. IAG PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD SIMILAR DISALLOW ANCES WERE DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 2.1.2015 IN ITA NO. 1 747/DEL/2013. LD. DR ACCEDED TO THE FACTS BROUGHT IN BEFORE US BY THE LD. AR. AS RE GARDS THE REVENUES APPEAL THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED BY REVENUE ARE ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND IN THIS RESPECT HE SUBMITTED THAT REVE NUE HAS RAISED TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL ONE OF WHICH RELATES TO ALLEGATION OF AO THA T INTEREST WAS PAID ON POST DATED CHEQUES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE SECON D ISSUE IS OF DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS WHICH IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AS DEMONSTRATED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL. LD. DR ACCEDED TO THE FACTS OF T HE CASE. 2. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GON E THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT ALONGWITH ITS VARIOUS GROUP COMPANIES. A SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATIONS WAS CARRIED ON UPON ASSESEE & ITS GROUP COMPANY WHEREIN VARIOUS ADDITIONS WERE MADE . WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUES WERE INVOLVED IN ANOTHER G ROUP COMPANIES OF ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS WERE DEC IDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE ITA NOS. 2547/DEL/2013,2314/D EL/2013 ACIT VS. FRAGRANCE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. & FRAGRANCE CONS TRUCITON PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 3 HONBLE TRIBUNAL. REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A (3 ) THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF WESTLAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VIDE PARA 10 .10 HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 10.10. WE HAVE ALSO TAKEN OURSELVES THROUGH THE J UDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. IN DUSTRIAL ENGINEERING PROJECTS PVT. LTD. (CITED SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BEFORE US FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE A REVENUE RECEIPT. HOW THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN TUTICORIN ALK ALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE HAS NOT BEEN SET OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES NOR HAS THE LD. DR BEEN ABLE TO ADD RESS THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT TO THE ISSUE AT HAND. WE HAVE TAKEN O URSELVES THROUGH THE SAID JUDGMENT AND SEEN THAT IT PROCEEDS ON ENTIRETY DIFF ERENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND HAS NO APPLICABILITY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS SEEN THAT FROM THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND ALSO BEFORE US WHICH HAVE BEEN DISC USSED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER NO ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED BY THE R EVENUE SO AS TO CONTEND HOW THEY ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT HAND, NO DISTINGUISHING FACT, CIRCUMSTANCE OR POSITION OF LAW HAS BEEN RELIED UPO N SO AS TO COME TO A CONTRARY FINDING THAT THE ONE ARRIVED AT. ACCORDING LY ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND TH E JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE ACT NAMEL Y SECTION 40A(3), WE HOLD FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN HEREINABOVE THAT SEC TION 40A(3) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN WRONGLY INVOKED AS ADMITTEDLY NO EXPENSES RELA TABLE TO THE ADDITION HAS BEEN CLAIMED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY DEMO NSTRATED THAT THE PAYMENT WERE REIMBURSEMENT MADE BY CWPPL. ACCORDINGLY GROUN D NO. 4 IS ALLOWED. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY EXPENSES RELATABLE TO ADDITION & THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT CLAIM ED AS EXPENDITURE AS IS NOTED BY AO IN PARA 4.3 & 4.4. OF HIS ORDER. 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE TRIBUNAL OR DER GROUND NO. 5 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 4. THE OTHER ISSUE OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND HAS BEEN RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 4 AND 4.1 WHEREBY THE ASSESS EE HAS RAISED GROUND THAT ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE WERE NOT CLAIM ED AS DEDUCTION AND THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED AND IN THE ALTERNATI VE GROUND NO. 4.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUND THAT THE RECIPIENTS OF ADDITI ONAL PAYMENTS WERE NOT OWNERS OF ITA NOS. 2547/DEL/2013,2314/D EL/2013 ACIT VS. FRAGRANCE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. & FRAGRANCE CONS TRUCITON PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 4 LAND. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENT S HAS ALSO BEEN RAISED BY REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL WHICH THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF WESTLAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. HAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESEEE AND THEREFORE GRO UND NO. 4 AND 4.1 HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THEREFORE DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. NOW COMING TO THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVE NUE. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAD DELETED AN ADDITION OF RS. 22,85,969/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON POST DATED CHEQUES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PAID OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE REVENUE IS FURTHER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAD DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,46,871/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS MADE BY THE AS SESSEE. WE FIND THAT BOTH THESE ISSUES ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY T HE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. WESTLAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHER GROUP COMPANIES OF ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE PARA 13 OF SUCH TRIBUNAL ORDER DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS IS REPRODUCED BELOW :- 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME WE AR C OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE MATERIAL ISSUE IS THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS NEVER CLAIMED AS ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS EXPENDITUR E THE OCCASION TO MAKE A DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAME DOES NOT ARISE. ON THIS FA CT THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS ADMITTEDLY THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT CLAIMED AS AN EX PENSE BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY HAS NOT BEEN ROUTED THROUGH ITS P& L ALC. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE OCCASION TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF THE SAME BY WAY OF A DISALLOWANCE IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE DOES NOT ARISE. THE REASONING AND FINDING GIVEN WHILE CONSID ERING THE ARGUMENTS QUA GROUND NO-4 WOULD FULLY APPLY HERE ALSO. THE DIFFER ENCE THAT HERE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS ADDED U/S 37 AS OPPOSED TO PART OF THE EX PENDITURE DISALLOWED U/S 40A(3) IS NOT SO MATERIAL AS THE FINDING IS ARRIVED AT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE ITA NOS. 2547/DEL/2013,2314/D EL/2013 ACIT VS. FRAGRANCE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. & FRAGRANCE CONS TRUCITON PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 5 MATERIAL FACT THAT HEREIN ALSO NO SUCH CLAIM OF EXP ENDITURE HAS BEEN MADE. THE FACT THAT THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS WERE WARRANTE D IN ORDER TO AVOID POTENTIAL DISPUTES AMONGST THE CLAIMANTS OF THE LAN D HOLDING WHICH HAVE BEEN PASSED THROUGH TO THE LAND HOLDERS FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION WHEREIN THERE MAY BE INFORMAL ARRANGEMENTS OF OWNERSHIP AND OR THE PAYMENTS WERE FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY TO FACILITATE PEACEFUL PO SSESSION AND REGISTRATION OF THE LAND HOLDING; WHERE BY THE TIME REGISTRY WAS MA DE THE IANDHOLDERS FELT A HIGHER PAYMENT WAS NECESSITATED DUE TO INCREASE IN VALUE ARE ISSUES WHICH ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ENDORSED IN THE PRESENT PRO CEEDINGS. GROUND NO-3 ON THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD CONSIDERING THE JUDIC IAL PRECEDENT REFERRED TO IN DETAIL WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO-4 HAS TO BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.3.1 AND 3.2 AS SUCH NEED NOT BE ADJUDICATED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 6. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE TRIBUNAL ORDER GROUND NO. 2 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. REGARDING THE GROUND NO. 1 WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 6.4 HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO RECOMPUTE INTEREST ON PDCS A FTER SIX MONTHS FROM DATE OF ISSUE OF PDCS AND THE AO IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH DIRE CTIONS HAS DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE CHEQUES WERE ENCASHED IN LESS THAN SIX MONTHS FROM DATE OF ISSUE AND THEREFORE ENTIRE ADDITION WAS DELETED. THE COPY OF APPEAL EFFECT IS PLACED ON PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 98. FURTHER WE FIND THAT A SIMI LAR ISSUE WAS ALSO THERE IN A GROUP COMPANY NAMELY M/S. DRUZBA OVERSEAS (P) LTD. WHEREIN THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 25.2.2015 HAD DISMISSED SIMIL AR GROUND OF APPEAL HOLDING THAT THE CHEQUES WERE ENCASHED WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MO NTHS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL A RE REPRODUCED BELOW. :- 'REVENUE'S APPEAL 14. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE R ELATING TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 26,69,7851- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTERE ST ON PDCS PAID OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS CONCERNED, IT IS WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD . COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS WAS THE INTEREST CALCULATED @ 15% P.M. ON PDCS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE (SALE DEED) TO THE DATE OF ENCASHMENT. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HELD IN PARA 5.4 AT PAGE 17 OF HIS ORDER ITA NOS. 2547/DEL/2013,2314/D EL/2013 ACIT VS. FRAGRANCE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. & FRAGRANCE CONS TRUCITON PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 6 THAT 'IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO WORK OUT THE EXTENSI ON OF PDCS IN EACH CASE THEN A. O. IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTED INTEREST ON P DCS AFTER SIX MONTHS FROM DATE OF ISSUE OF PDCS I.E. DATE OF SALE, AS SIX MONTHS IS TAKEN AS REASON ABLE PERIOD FOR GIVING PDC AS PER SALE DEED'. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT SINCE THE PDCS WERE ENCASHED IN LESS THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF I SSUE, ENTIRE INTEREST OF RS.26,69,785/- WAS DELETED IN PURSUANCE TO THE ORDE R OF CIT( A). COPY OF APPEAL EFFECT BY WAY OF REVISED TAX COMPUTATION IS ENCLOSED AT PA GE 98-99 OF THE PR. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH DELHI IN THE CASE OF A SISTER CO NCERN VIZ: M/S IAG PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD DATED 31.10.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO, 1674/DE1/13 & 1765/DE1/13 FOR AY 2008-09. (EXTRACT COPY IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 69-73 OF THE PR. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF M/S I AG PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD (SUPRA) ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND BOTH COMPANIES ARE GROUP/SISTER COMPANIES. 15. LD. DR DID NOT HAVE ANY RAISED ANY OBJECTION TO THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION OF THE ID. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE WITH US SPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES; PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE C ONTENTION OF THE ID. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 1 RAIS ED IN THE REVENUE'S APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2014 OF T HE ITAT, DELHI 'C' BENCH PASSED IN ITA NO. 17561DEL12013 (A.Y. 2008-09) IN THE CASE OF M/S IAG PROMOTER & DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD VIDE PA RA NO. 3 AT PAGE 5 AS UNDER:- 'THE CIT(A) DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE INTEREST ON PDCS AND THERE WAS A SOUND LOGIC FOR SUCH DIRECTION. HIS DIRECTION IS BA SED ON MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNE D CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND ACCORDINGLY, WE REJECT GROUND NO.L OF THE REVENUE'S APPEAL.' 17. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT AS AFORESA ID, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE'S APPEAL. ' 7. IN PARA 2.6 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER THE DATE OF ISSUE O F CHEQUES AND DATE OF ENCASHMENTS OF PDCS IS MENTIONED BY AO HIMSELF AND WE FIND THAT THE CHEQUES WERE ENCASHED WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND THE REFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ITA NOS. 2547/DEL/2013,2314/D EL/2013 ACIT VS. FRAGRANCE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. & FRAGRANCE CONS TRUCITON PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 7 ABOVE TRIBUNAL ORDER WE DISMISS THE GROUND NO. 1 O F REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARLY ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH AUGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 24 TH AUGUST, 2015 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 19.8..2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19.8.2 015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER