The ITO, Ward-2, Gandhinagar V. Gujarat Udhyog Bhavan Society, Gandhinagar

ITA 2605/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 260520514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: TALATI
• Keywords: Capital expenditure; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI D.K.TYAGI, JM AND A. MOJAN ALANKAMON Y, AM. ITA NO.2605/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR:2006-07 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GANDHINAGAR. VS. GUJARAT UDYOG BHAVANS SOCIETY, BLOCK NO.19, GROUND FLOOR UDYOG BHAVAN SECTOR-11, GANDHINAGAR. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI S. H. TALATI, AR DATE OF HEARING :20/12/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.12.11. O R D E R PER D. K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 15/07/2009 FOR ASST. YEAR 2006-07. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL :- (I) THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.6,81,147/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON DEPOSITS AN D BONDS. ITA NO.2605/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 2 (II) THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.19,98,454/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE TOWARDS CAPITA L EXPENDITURE. (III) THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.22,10,044/- CLAIM U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.6,81,147/-ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON DEPOSITS AND BONDS. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SO CIETY, FORMED FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE OFFICES OF UDHYOG BHAVAN COMPLEX . THE SOCIETY IS FORMED BY THE MEMBERS AND IT COLLECTS CONTRIBUTION FROM ITS MEMBERS. BESIDES THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDING, THE SOCIET Y PROVIDES OTHER AMENITIES SUCH AS PARKING FACILITIES, MAINTENANCE O F COMMON FACILITIES SUCH AS ELECTRICITY, DRAINAGE, WATER SUPPLY, SECURI TY ARRANGEMENT FOR COMMON AREA, SAFE GUARD THE ENTIRE PREMISES FROM FI RE HAZARDS BY TAKING PROPER MEASURES, PROVIDING CANTEEN FACILITIES. THE SOCIETYS INCOME IS FROM MEMBERS CONTRIBUTION COLLECTED BY WAY OF MAIN TENANCE CHARGES. IT ALSO RECEIVES INCOME BY WAY OF RENT AND TENDER FEES . FURTHER, THE ELECTRICITY CHARGES INCURRED ARE ALSO RECOVERED FRO M ITS MEMBERS. APART FROM THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE ALSO RECEIVES INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS MADE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ENTIRE I NCOME EXEMPTED ON THE BASIS OF THE CONCEPT OF MUTUALITY. DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO THAT THE INTEREST OF RS.6,81,147/- WAS RECEIVED ON SHORT TER M DEPOSITS WITH BANKS ITA NO.2605/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 3 AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, DETAILS OF WHICH WERE P ROVIDED TO THE AO. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE APPELLATE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05 WHERE, ON IDENTICAL ISSUE, THE AMOUNT OF IN TEREST WAS HELD TO BE NOT TAXABLE. THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABA D IN THE CASE OF GULMARG ASSOCIATION, ASHIMA ESTATE OWNERS ASSOCIATI ON IN ITA NO.389/A/2001 WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS STATED BEFORE AO THA T INTEREST RECEIVED ON SURPLUS COLLECTED EARLIER BY THE ASSOCIATION WAS EX PENDED/UTILIZED DURING THE YEAR FOR THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SOCIETY AND HENC E THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF TAXING ANY INTEREST INCOME. THE AO HAS OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE FULFILLS THE CONDITIONS, YE T THE ADDITION OF RS.6,81,147/- HAVE BEEN MADE IGNORING THE CONCEPT O F MUTUALITY. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN IT REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE T HE AO. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CANARA BANK GOLDEN JUBILEE STAFF WELFARE FUND VS . DCIT 222 CTR 286 TO SUPPORT ITS STAND THAT PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALI TY WOULD BE APPLICABLE IN ITS CASE. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EARLIER ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FOR ASST. Y EAR 2004-05 DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- ITA NO.2605/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 4 2.2 THE MATTER HAS BEEN GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION. T HE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR TO ASST. YEAR 2004-05. THE APPELLATE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 19/01/2007 HAS ANALYSED THE E NTIRE ISSUES INCLUDING THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE AO AS WE LL AS THE APPELLANT IN DETAIL AND HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT IS EXEMPT FROM TAXAT ION ON THE BASIS OF MUTUALITY. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE STAN D TAKEN BY MY PREDECESSOR AND FOLLOWING THE SAME, FOR THIS YEAR A LSO, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE INTER EST INCOME OF RS.6,81,147/- AS APPELLANTS INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES AND BEING TAXABLE. HENCE THE SAME IS DELETED. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO A ND SUBMITTED THAT THE SOCIETY HAD DEPOSITED ITS SURPLUS FUNDS RECEIVE D FROM MEMBERS IN FD WITH GSFC AND SARDAR SAROVAR NIGAM LTD. AND IDBI BO NDS AND HAD EARNED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.6,81,147/-. THESE INVE STMENTS HAD BEEN MADE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME FROM THE SURPLUS MAINTEN ANCE FUND RECEIVED FROM ITS MEMBERS AND IT IS EVIDENT THAT THIS INCOME WAS DERIVED FROM A THIRD PARTY AND IS NOT BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTION FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION AND IT DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONDITION O F MUTUALITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELYING ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS HELD THAT THE INTE REST INCOME COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE DERIVED FROM MUTUAL ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY AND HENCE THE INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.6,81,147/- WAS RIGHTLY HEL D AS TAXABLE AND WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE SOCIETY. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PROPERLY ITA NO.2605/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 5 APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WRONGLY DELET ED THE ADDITION. HIS ORDER MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) H AS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE IS SUE IS NOW COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASST. YEAR 2004- 05 IN ITA NO.1469/AHD/2007 WHEREIN ON IDENTICAL FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDE D BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INFI RMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). IT SHOULD BE UPHELD. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GOIN G THROUGH THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST T HE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2004- 05 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS A CO -OPERATIVE SOCIETY FORMED FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE OFFICE UDHYOG BHAVAN COMPLEX. THE ASSESSEE COLLECTS FUNDS FROM THE MEMBE RS FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDING. THE SURPLUS FUNDS WERE INVESTED IN THE BANK ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE EARNED INTEREST OF RS.12 ,58,358/-. THE LD. AO ASSESSED THE ENTIRE RECEIPT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY LIABLE TO TAX. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ABOVE ADD ITION ON THE GROUND OF MUTUALITY BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE ITA NO.2605/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 6 CASE OF SHIVALIKA CO-OP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO (2006) 101 ITD 391 (DEL). WE FIND THAT IN THE ABOVE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER :- IN THE APPEALS BEFORE ME THE DISPUTE RELATES TO TH E ASSESSMENT OF A SUM OF RS.2,69,591/- FOR ASST. YEAR 1997-98 AND RS.2,01,40 9/- FOR ASST. YEAR 1998-99 ASSESSED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON FIXED DEPOSITS WITH THE BANK. IT IS SEEN THAT INTEREST IN COME EARNED BY AN ASSESSEE ON SURPLUS FUNDS OF A MUTUAL SOCIETY DEPOSITED WITH A BANKING INSTITUTION ARE COVERED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY, AS HELD BY H ONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THEIR JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF IT VS. AL L INDIA ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE WELFARE SOCIETY (2003) 184 CTR (DEL) 274. 6. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL A ND WITH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF DIRECTOR OF IT VS. ALL INDIA ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE WELFARE SOCIETY (SUPRA). THE LD. DR COULD NOT CITE ANY CONTRARY DEC ISION ON THE ISSUE. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AB OVE DECISIONS, DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIB UNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT( A). THE SAME IS UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. THE SECOND GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.19,98,454/- MADE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONTRIBUTION EARNED FOR FUTURE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE WAS TO BE TRE ATED AS INCOME. 8. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.19,98,454/- IS CONC ERNED, THE AO GAVE THE LOGIC THAT WHILE ON ONE HAND THE ASSESSEE WAS S HOWING EXCESS OF ITS EXPENDITURE OVER RECEIPT IN ITS EXPENDITURE & RECEI PT ACCOUNT, YET IT HAD SHOWN AN INCREASE OF RS.19,98,454/- AS ADVANCE TOWA RDS CAPITAL ITA NO.2605/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 7 EXPENDITURE OR EARMARKED FOR THE EXPENDITURE FOR FU TURE CAPITAL WORK, WITHOUT SHOWING ANY CORRESPONDING RECEIPTS. 9. IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEES STAND WAS THAT AS THE ENTIRE CONTRIBUTION WAS TO BE EXEMPT ON THE PRINCIP LE OF MUTUALITY, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION OF MAKING ANY ADDITION. THE CO NTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED IN THE PAST FROM THE MEMBERS TOWARDS OWN FACILITIES AN D AMENITIES DESERVED THE SAME TREATMENT OF CONTRIBUTION. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AFTER MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION THE AO HAD ARRIVED AT A POSITIVE FIGURE, INSTEAD OF DEFICIT. NO CARRIED FORWARD OF THE DEFIC IT HAD BEEN CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 10. THE THIRD GROUND IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITIO N OF RS.22,30,044/- MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ON THIS ISSUE THE AS SESSEES STAND BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT IT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN RESPECT OF WHICH SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS APPLICABLE . SINCE AO HAS HIMSELF ACCEPTED THAT THE RECEIPTS OF THE SOCIETY WERE BY W AY OF CONTRIBUTION FROM MEMBERS AND WERE EXEMPT ON THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALI TY, THERE COULD BE NOTHING ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE WHICH COULD BE DISA LLOWED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE SOCIETY HAD FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF TDS TO THE EXTENT T HEY WERE APPLICABLE TO IT. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING B OTH THE ADDITION OF RS.19,98,454/- AND RS.22,30,044/-. THE SAME SHOULD BE DELETED. ITA NO.2605/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 8 11. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE CONTENTION OF AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E DELETED BOTH THE. ADDITIONS. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L. 12. THE LD. DR SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OF FICER, SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH E AO NOTED THAT AS PER ASSESSEE THERE WAS A DECISION IN THE AGM BY THE COM MITTEE OF THE SOCIETY AND OUT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,24,33,2 79/- AN AMOUNT OF RS.19,98,454/- WAS KEPT RESERVE AN ADVANCE TOWARDS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE DURING THIS YEAR AND HAVING SHOWN EARLIER RESERVE O F RS.40,88,603/- AND THUS THE TOTAL LIABILITY WAS SHOWN AT RS.60,87,057/ - IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ONLY COPY OF AGENDA POINT OF THE AGM BUT NOT FURNISHED ANY RECEIPTS IN SUPPORT OF AMOUNT OF RS.1 9,98,454/- SHOWN AS ADVANCE TOWARDS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN THE BALANCE SHEET. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE AN D MADE THE ADDITION. 12.1 REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.22,30,044/-, THE ASSE SSEE HAD FURNISHED VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 29/12/2008 ALONG WITH COPY OF FORM NO.27A AND E- FILING PROVISIONAL TDS RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENT OF RS .59,285/- ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CONTRACT PAYMENT OF RS.26,94,802/- WHILE THE DETAILS FILED BY ITS LETTER DATED 17/12/2008, THERE WERE PAYMENTS OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.49,24,846/- ABOVE RS.20,000/-, FOR WHICH TDS TO BE DEDUCTED AND ITA NO.2605/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 9 PAID OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.51,89,029/- THE ASSE SSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED DETAILS OF TDS ON THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF RS.22,30,0 44/- AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 14. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GOI NG THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT THE A SSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND IT IS NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF ACCEPTED THAT THE RECEIPTS OF THE SOCIETY A RE BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTION FROM MEMBERS AND THE SAME ARE EXEMPT O N THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. THERE CAN BE NOTHING ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE WHICH COULD BE DISALLOWED. SO IN NO WAY SECTION 40(A)(IA) COULD BE APPLIED TO A HOUSING MAINTENANCE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AS ITS ACTIVITIES ARE NOT RELATED TO BUSINESS. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION ADDITION OF RS. 22,30,044/- ON ACCOUNT OF TDS HAD WRONGLY BEEN MADE BY THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE , HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAME. 14.1 AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.19,98,4 54/- THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE BALANCE SHEET ENTRY OF RS .19,98,454/- AS INCREASE IN THE HEAD ADVANCE FOR REPAIRS IS NOT RELATED TO THE OUTCOME OF THE ITA NO.2605/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 10 INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. BEING A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY FOR THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF THE MEMBERS, SETTING APART THE SU MS FOR FUTURE EXPENDITURE OR BRINGING ANY FUNDS FROM THE EARLIER ACCUMULATION WOULD NOT UPSET THE CONCEPT OF MUTUALITY. THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND BESIDES THE STANDARD RECEIPTS LIKE RECOVERIES F OR M & R CHARGES, ELECTRICITY CHARGES AND INTEREST INCOME, NO OTHER I NCOME OR DEPOSIT HAD BEEN SHOWN IN ITS ACCOUNT WHICH COULD LEAD TO ANY A DDITION. IN VIEW OF OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS OF RS.19,98,454/- AND RS .22,30,044/-. THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER. THE SAME IS UPHELD. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29.12.11. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICI AL MEMBER AHMEDABAD, MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO.2605/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 11 1.DATE OF DICTATION 20/12/2011. 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER 22/12/2011 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.. 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .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 ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..