Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement P Ltd, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -12, Pune, Pune

ITA 260/PUN/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0627 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Related party transaction; Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 92C; 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.260/PUN/2022 िनधा रण वष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Private Limited, Plot No.1, Gat No.181, Village : Fulgaon, Tal. Haveli, Pune, Maharashtra 412 216 Vs. Dy.CIT Circle-12, Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee takes an exception to the final assessment order dated 24-02-2022 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Pithily put, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned Indian subsidiary of Grieshaber Verwaltungsgeselleshaft GmBH, Germany. It is engaged in Assembly, Trading, Field commissioning, Repairing and Provision Assessee by: Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue by: Shri Shubhakant Sahu Date of hearing 14-10-2022 Date of pronouncement 17-10-2022 ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 2 of Engineering services relating to Pressure and Level Measurement Instruments, Sensors and Signal Instruments. Return was filed declaring total income at Rs.62,73,120/. Certain international transactions were reported in Form No.3CEB. The AO made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determining the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the international transactions. The assessee had international transactions under the three segments, viz., Assembly/Manufacturing; Trading; and Commission. It prepared a consolidated set of books of account for all the segments. However, for the purpose of the ALP determination, the assessee bifurcated its financials into the above referred three segments. The figures of revenue, separately available, were adopted as such and the combined expenses were allocated to the three segments by using different allocation keys, such as, rent base; employee cost base; and GP ratio base. 3. The first grievance in this appeal is against the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,02,24,209/- made by the AO in the `Trading segment’. This segment consisted of the international transaction of ‘Purchase of traded goods’ at transacted value of Rs.19,37,32,319. The assessee benchmarked it by using the Resale Price Method (RPM) as the most appropriate method. The TPO ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 3 observed that the assessee did not provide any rational basis for applying the allocation keys for bifurcating combined expenses under different segments. Rejecting such allocation, he distributed all the costs in the ratio of revenues from the three segments. He further found that the assessee’s ratio of Depreciation and Employee benefit expenses to total Revenue was much higher than that of the comparables. Rejecting the RPM, he proceeded to determine the ALP of the Trading segment under the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM), by computing the transfer pricing adjustment at Rs.2,74,45,190/-. The AO notified the draft order with this amount of adjustment. The assessee raised objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), inter alia, assailing the change of the allocation keys by the TPO; applying the TNMM as the most appropriate method; and alternations made in the set of comparables. The DRP changed certain allocation keys from the segmental revenue as adopted by the TPO; approved the application of the TNMM; and made some alterations to the final set of comparables. Pursuant to the directions, the AO passed the final assessment order by making the transfer pricing addition of Rs.1,02,24,209/- in the Trading segment, against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 4 4. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is undisputed that the assessee maintained accounts on consolidated basis but furnished separate profit determination under the three segments by allocating expenses in certain ratios, which underwent change at the hands of the TPO and then the DRP. The moot question involved herein is against the application by the TPO of the TNMM as the most appropriate method as against the assessee choosing the RPM. 5. It is found as an uncontroverted position that the assessee purchased finished goods, namely, Sensors and Instruments etc. from its Associated Enterprise and sold them as such without making any value addition. Section 92C of the Act provides for computation of arm's length price. Sub-section (1) gives five specific methods including the RPM and the TNMM and one general method for the ALP determination. The Act does not stipulate application of any specific method in any specific situation. Mechanism for determining the ALP under the five specific methods has been set out in Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The modus operandi for determining the ALP under the RPM is enshrined in Rule 10B(1)(b). This method talks of considering the price at which the property purchased by an ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 5 enterprise from an AE is resold. Name of this method – `Resale’- and its text specifically deal with a situation in which a property purchased or service obtained by an Indian enterprise from an Associated Enterprise is resold or provided to an unrelated enterprise as such without doing any alternation to its features or characteristics. In contrast, the TNMM under Rule 10B(1)(e) contains a mechanism for computing operating margin realised by an enterprise from an international transaction and then comparing it with similar operating profit margin realised in Comparable Uncontrolled transaction. Unlike the RPM dealing specifically with the international transaction of purchase of goods or services, the TNMM is not a transaction-specific and provides for the ALP determination in a generalised manner. It goes without saying that if a particular method deals with a specific nature of transaction, then, such particular method should be preferred over a general method for that specific transaction. On a comparative study of both the methods, it gets vivid that where a certain property is purchased by an Indian enterprise from its AE and is resold as such without any value addition, it is the RPM, being the specific method, which would hold the field in preference to the TNMM, being its general contemporary. ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 6 6. The ALP determination under the RPM involves adopting the price at which the property purchased from an Associated Enterprise is resold which is reduced by the amount of normal gross profit margin accruing in a comparable uncontrolled transaction. The price thus arrived at is reduced by the expenses incurred by the enterprise in connection with the purchase of property, which, after further adjustments on account of functional and other differences, constitutes the ALP in respect of purchase of property. The normal gross profit margin absorbs the effect of all individual items of expenses. Composition and extent of individual items of expenses may vary from one company to another. For example, a particular company may have its own building for running business. In that case, its depreciation cost will be higher vis-a-vis another company, operating from a rented premises, incurring more rental cost. Higher depreciation cost of the first company is set off with the higher rent of the second. When we consider the gross profit margins, the effect of all the individual higher or lower level of expenses, gets creased out. After taking gross profit margin, one cannot go back to the individual items of expenses for contending that a particular expense of comparable is more or less vis-a-vis the assessee or ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 7 another comparable. The raison d’etre is that gross profit neutralises the effect of all over and under values of individual items of expenses. 7. Adverting to the facts of the extant case, it is seen that the assessee is admittedly engaged in purchase of products from its AE, which have been sold to the unrelated parties as such without carrying out any value addition. Doubtlessly, it is only the RPM which would govern the situation and will have to be applied as the most appropriate method. Simply because the ratio of employee cost and depreciation of the assessee to the revenue under the segment is more in comparison with some of its comparables, that would not thwart the application of the RPM. Such effect of individual higher or lower values of expenses gets ironed out when the gross profit margin is taken. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the AO was not justified in applying the TNMM as the most appropriate method as against the RPM. The impugned order is set aside on this score and the matter is sent back to the file of the AO/TPO for re-determining the ALP of the `Trading segment’ under the RPM with the comparables and allocation of expenses as finally approved by the DRP. Needless ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 8 to say, the assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of hearing in such fresh determination. 8. The second issue raised by the assessee is against the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,11,94,115/- made by the AO in the `Manufacturing segment’. 9. The facts anent to this point are that the assessee applied the TNMM with eight comparables for demonstrating that the ALP of the international transactions under the `Assembly/Manufacturing’ segment was at ALP. The TPO did not disturb the application of the TNMM as the most appropriate method. However, taking into consideration the allocation of expenses done by him on the basis of revenue, the TPO proceeded to determine the ALP of this segment. He retained only one comparable from the assessee’s list, namely, Kusum Electrical Industries Limited and rejected all others. Thereafter, he selected other nine companies as comparable. Considering the assessee’s PLI at (-) 13.28% as computed by him on the basis of the revised allocation key of expenses and finding out median at 13.41% of the comparables finally chosen, he worked out transfer pricing adjustment under this segment at Rs.2,90,21,248/-. The DRP made certain alterations to the comparables selected by the TPO and also the allocation ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 9 keys for some expenses. Giving effect to the directions, the AO recomputed the assessee’s PLI at (-) 7.23% and made the final transfer pricing addition under the segment at Rs.1,11,94,115/-, against which the assessee has approached the Tribunal. 10. The larger issue in the `Assembly/Manufacturing’ segment is determining the comparability of the companies selected. However, this issue depends upon the primary issue of proper characterization of the assessee’s business activity under this segment. Whereas the assessee claimed itself to be engaged in low level basic assembly activity and chose comparables operating in the field of Trading, the AO held the assessee to be engaged in full-fledged manufacturing activity and chose comparables accordingly. Thus the initial question is to determine the assessee’s proper characterization. 11. The assessee specifically contended before the DRP that the TPO erred in re-classifying its assembly activity as that of full- fledged manufacturing activity. It made an elaborate functional analysis about the nature of activity done by it under this segment, which has been reproduced at page 68 onwards of the DRP’s directions, by stating, inter alia, that every product of VEGA comprises of two components, viz. Electronic part and Mechanical ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 10 part. Full manufacturing of both these parts was done by the AE outside India. All intangibles, such as, patent, know-how etc. required for the production of these products were owned by the AE outside India and Research and Development activities relating to these products were also carried by the AE. The assessee purchased fully manufactured Electronic and Mechanical parts at its rented premises in Pune and assembled them to finished product. Only two benches were used for this purpose, viz., one for assembly and other for testing. Only basic Tools and Equipments, such as, screw drivers and cables etc. were needed for assembly and it needed only 10 to 15 minutes to assemble one product. Only three persons were doing the job of assembling, who were not highly skilled or professionally qualified. The assessee submitted a list of its employees engaged in manufacturing segment with their respective designations and the nature of work done by them by clearly mentioning that only three Technicians were involved into assembly function and all others were into sales activity of the assembled products. The assessee made extensive submissions before the DRP to accentuate that it was only into ‘Assembly’ and not ‘Manufacturing’. The DRP, after religiously recording the submissions of the asssessee, simply ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 11 went ahead with countenancing the TPO’s view without properly controverting the contentions advanced. As against the specific points raised by the assessee, the DRP canvassed a general view that the claims made by the assessee were not backed by any substantive material and further the evidence, if any, furnished were only self-serving in nature. It did not deny that the assessee did not have adequate machinery for full-fledged manufacturing activity. It focussed on the payment of Excise duty by the assessee as a corollary for `manufacturing’. Per contra, the ld. AR submitted that Excise duty is required to be paid even for assembly function, which has not been countered on behalf of the Revenue. The DRP did not deny the assessee’s contention of having only three employees doing the basic and low-end assembly of the fully manufactured products purchased from its AE. Thus, it is apparent that the submissions advanced by the assessee before the DRP have not been rebutted with any plausible reasoning. 12. We have gone through the assessee’s Balance sheet, a copy of which has been placed at page 263 of the paper book. Schedule of Fixed Assets shows only Land, Tools and Equipment, Computers and IT assets, Vehicles, Office Equipments, Leasehold Improvements under the head ‘Tangible Asset’ apart from ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 12 Intangible assets comprising of certain computer software at Rs.95,813/-. This divulges that apart from certain Tools and Equipments, the assessee did not have any Plant and Machinery needed for manufacturing the finished goods. We have also examined the Profit and loss account of the assessee. Nature of expenses covered in the Profit and loss account does not justify the carrying on of full-fledged Manufacturing activity. The Directors’ report of the assessee has also been gone into, which does not refer to any manufacturing activity. 13. At this juncture, it is pertinent to accentuate that `assembly’ is as different from manufacturing as it is from trading. Functions, assets and risks involved in all the three activities are poles apart from each other. `Assembly’ lies somewhere between `trading’ and `manufacturing’. Depending upon the extent of assembly function, it may in certain cases be close to manufacturing whilst in other cases it may be close to trading. Where a finished product is received in a knocked-down position and then assembled, it is usually a basic assembly. However, where more intensive activities are required to be done before coming out with a qualitatively different product having varying features and characteristics, it may be an extensive assembly or sometimes even breaching to a ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 13 full-fledged manufacturing activity. The assessee’s stand ab-initio was that it was into assembly function of a very low level. The authorities below have not faulted with such submissions despite the fact that the Department has no dearth of resources at its command to uncover the truth, if it is not properly brought out. The fortiori is that the unassailed submissions made by the assessee, which are further backed by the relevant Annual accounts, have to be accepted as correct. Ex consequenti, re- characterising the `assembly’ function of the assessee into `full- fledged manufacturing’ function is uncalled for. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order on this score and hold that the assessee has been engaged in basic assembly function only. 14. Having determined the nature of work done by the assessee under this segment, we now move on to the challenged comparables. In this regard, it is noted that the DRP finalised seven comparables including the one selected by the assessee and not removed by the TPO, namely, Kusum Electrical Industries.The assessee is aggrieved by the inclusion of all the six comparables chose by the TPO, which we will deal in seriatim. ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 14 Mettler Toledo India Pvt. Ltd. 15. This company was chosen by the TPO as a comparable. The assessee objected to its comparability before the DRP contending that it was having Related Party Transactions (RPTs) at more than 25%, which was the filter applied by the TPO. The DRP directed that for computing the percentage of related party transactions, only RPTs of income nature should be compared with the total income and not the RPTs of expenses and income with the total income. It sent the matter back to the AO. Giving effect to the direction given by the DRP, the AO/TPO noticed that the ratio of RPTs of revenue nature to the revenue of this company was only 0.13%. He, therefore, continued with its inclusion. 16. The Annual report of this company is available at page ITAT-1297 onwards of the paper book. Related party transactions have been listed at page ITAT-1310 to 1312. Such related party transactions are a bouquet of items of expenses as well as revenue. The ld. AR has placed on record a chart showing the related party transactions of expense nature of this company which total up to Rs.177.27 crore. Such total has been determined by scrutinising all the RPTs and then segregating the RPTs of expense nature, which are in the realm of Software development expenses; Market ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 15 support charges; Global business shared support service charges; Purchase of raw materials, components and traded goods; Group cost allocation charges. As against total of such related party costs at Rs.177.27 crore, the total costs incurred by this company stands at Rs.310.32 crore, giving 57% as RPTs of expenses. Correctness of the copious details with relevant figures shown by the ld. AR has not been disputed by the ld. DR. Thus, it is palpable that the RPTs of expense nature at 57% breach the filter of 25% for exclusion. Though the DRP directed to consider the RPTs of income nature only, but the essence of the RPTs is the consideration either of expenses or revenue and not a combination of both. If a company’s RPTs are only in the nature of expenses, then percentage of such RPTs should be viewed qua its total expenses. If the RPTs comprise only of revenue nature, then percentage of such RPTs should be viewed qua the total revenue. In case the RPTs comprise both of revenue and expense items, then both should be viewed separately as a percentage of the respective revenue or expenses. In case either the RPTs of revenue or expenses cross the threshold of 25%, the company should be considered as failing the RPT filter notwithstanding the fact that the other RPT is well within 25%. ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 16 17. Adverting to the factual matrix of this company, it is seen that the percentage of the related party transactions of expenses of this company is more than 57% of the total expenses incurred by it, which fails the RPT filter notwithstanding the fact that the percentage of the RPTs of the revenue items is way below 25%. We, ergo, direct to exclude this company from the list of comparables. Avery India Ltd. 18. This company was included by the TPO in the list of comparables. The assessee contended before the DRP that it was into full-fledged manufacturing of Weighing machines having high intensity of functions such as Research & Development and hence, ceased to be comparable. Rejecting the assessee’s contention, the DRP approved its inclusion. 19. While discussing supra the nature of business carried out by the assessee, we have held that it is only into low-end assembly functions. In that view of the matter, the assessee cannot be compared with the companies involved into full-fledged manufacturing activity. 20. Turning to the facts of this company, we find that it is into manufacturing weighing machines and has also undertaken ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 17 contracts. 77% of its revenue is from manufacturing and 23% from contracts. The very fact that this company is engaged into manufacturing of weighing machines and not into any basic level assembly, we hold that it cannot be considered as comparable to the assessee. Essae Teraoka Private Ltd. 21. This company was included by the TPO in the list of comparables. The assessee objected to its inclusion before the DRP by contending that it was engaged in the design, manufacture and trading on wide range of products. Certain other objections were also espoused before the DRP, which were rejected on the ground that the assessee was also into manufacturing. 22. We have examined the Annual report of this company, a copy of which has been placed in the paper book. It can be seen that the nature of business of this company is multi-dimensional ranging from design, manufacture of electronic weighing and POS system, self-service KIOSK and GPS synchronized clock. It is also into field of constructing and long term leasing of high quality built to suit industrial and commercial space to its clients. This company is also engaged in R&D activity, which is apparent from its Annual report. In view of the clear difference in the nature of ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 18 business carried by this company vis-à-vis the assessee doing only the low end assembly activity, we hold that there is no comparison between the two. As such, this company is also directed to be excluded. Nitiraj Engineers Ltd. 23. This company was included by the TPO in the list of comparables. The assessee objected to its inclusion before the DRP by contending that it was into full-fledged manufacturing having different products. The DRP did not provide any succour. 24. Having gone through the Annual report of this company for the year under consideration, it can be seen that it is in the business of wide range of production of electronic weighing scales, currency counting machine and electronic fare meters etc. It has its full-fledged R&D department. It is also engaged in designing and developing electronic hardware and software. In addition, this company also holds intangible assets and has its full-fledged manufacturing facility. In this backdrop of facts, it is directed to be excluded from the list of comparables. Rice Lake Weighing Systems India Ltd. 25. This company was included by the TPO in the list of comparables. The assessee raised objections before the DRP ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 19 against its inclusion by submitting that it was into a different business model and was also into full-fledged manufacturing. The contentions raised by the assessee were repelled. 26. We have gone through the Annual report of this company, which shows that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and servicing of road and rail weigh bridges, in-motion electronic weighing systems and other weighing systems mainly used in industrial activities, bulk material handling systems and batching systems. This company also earns royalty income which shows that it has developed its own technical know-how that has been provided to others on payment basis. In addition, this company is also engaged in Research & Development for which it has spent substantial amount. The above distinguishing features make this company incomparable to the assessee company. We, therefore, order for its exclusion. Precia Molen India Pvt. Ltd. 27. The TPO included this company in the list of comparables. The assessee objected to its inclusion by submitting that it was into full-fledged manufacturing, which did not convince the DRP. After going through the Annual report of this company, it can be seen that it is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 20 electronic weighing systems having huge intensity plant and machinery. This company is also paying royalty for use of technical know-how for the purpose of manufacturing. Since this company is into full-fledged manufacturing, we hold that it cannot be compared with the assessee engaged in low-end assembly function. We, therefore, order to exclude it from the list of comparables. 28. After excluding the six comparables added by the TPO, we are left with one only comparable, namely, Kusum Electrical Industries Ltd. having weighted WCA margin (OP/OR) at (-) 10.26%. Rule 10CA, dealing with the computation of ALP with the help of dataset, has been inserted by the IT (Sixteenth Amdt.) Rules, 2015 w.e.f. 19.10.2015. The rule applies to the A.Y. 2017- 18 under consideration. This rule contains a detailed mechanism for determining the ALP in a broad manner. Sub-rule (1) of rule 10CA, which is relevant in the present context, states that: `Where in respect of an international transaction .... the application of the most appropriate method referred to in sub-section (1) of section 92C results in determination of more than one price, then the arm’s length price in respect of such international transaction ... shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of this rule.’ Au ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 21 contraire, the mechanism under rule 10CA does not and cannot apply if there is only one comparable uncontrolled price. In that panorama, the sole comparable uncontrolled price constitutes the ALP. 29. Adverting to the facts of the extant case, it is seen that the assessee selected certain comparables under the Assembly segment. The TPO retained only one comparable, viz., Kusum Electrical Industries Ltd. from the assessee’s list and included 9 more. The DRP squeezed the TPO’s list of comparables from 10 to 7 by retaining the one which was chosen by the assessee and allowed by the TPO in his list. We have seen supra that the six new comparables of the TPO, sustained by the DRP, are not comparable for the reasons assigned above, thereby leaving one company in the tally of comparables, being, Kusum Electrical Industries Ltd. having negative weighted working capital adjusted margin of (-) 10.26% as determined by the AO in his final order giving effect to the directions of the DRP. As against the ALP of (-) 10.26%, the PLI of the assessee from this segment has been computed by the AO in his final assessment order at (-) 7.23%, which discerns that the transaction is at ALP. The addition under this segment is directed to be deleted. ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 22 30. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17 th October, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 17 th October, 2022 Satish आदेश की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. थ / The Respondent; 3. The CIT(A)-13, Pune 4. 5. The Pr.CIT-5, Pune िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “C” / DR ‘C’, ITAT, Pune 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune ITA No.260/PUN/2022 Vega India Level and Pressure Measurement Pvt. Ltd., 23 Date 1. Draft dictated on 14-10-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 17-10-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *