Shri Kishorbhai Vallabhbhai Gadhiya, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, TDS-2, Ahmedabad

ITA 2697/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1203 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.2697 & 2698/AHD/2015. ASST. YEAR 2014-15 KISHORBHAI VALLABHBHAI GADHIYA, 28/144, RUPAL PARK, NR. VIJAY CROSS ROAD, NARANPURA, AHMEDABAD. APPELLANT VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS-2, AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT PAN :ABBPG 3035 H APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR BHARDWAJ, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 23/11/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/11/2015 O R D E R PER SHAILENDRA K. YADAV ITA NOS.2697 & 2698/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2014-15 2 THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT(A), AHMEDABAD, DATED 1.5. 2015. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS COMMON AND T HE ASSESSEE IS ALSO SAME, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1) THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVO USLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF FEES U/S 234 OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS.25,000/- IN RESPECT OF QUARTER-1. 2) THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN HELD THAT THE DEFAULT IS ONLY TECHNICAL BREACH OF LAW, INVOLVING NO LOSS TO THE DEPARTMENT. 3) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED LATE BY NINE DAYS. A PPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE AUTHORIZED COUNSEL HAD SUFFERED A FRACTURE IN BOTH HIS HANDS ON 3 RD SEPTEMBER, 2015 AND COULD NOT ATTEND PROFESSIONAL WORK FOR A LONG TIME. SO IT HAS BEEN REQUESTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BE CONDONED. ITA NOS.2697 & 2698/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2014-15 3 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. HENCE WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT T HE APPEALS. 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL AND A PRACTICING ADVOCATE AND HIS GROSS RECEIPT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 IS RS.14,95,675/- AND FOR F.Y.2013-14 IS RS .19,58,247/-. FROM TDS TRACES, IT REVEALED TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT THERE WAS REQUIREMENT ON THE PART OF APPELLANT TO DEDUCT TDS AND FILE TDS RETURN AS PER PROVISION OF CHAPTER XVII-B OF IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961. ACCORDINGLY HE ISSUED INTIMATION U/S 200A AND LEVIED FEES OF RS.25,000/- U/S 234E OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT (HERE IN AFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT). 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE T HE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS NOW COVER ED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, DATED 16.10.2015 IN THE CASE OF VIJAYSING H MANSINH VS. ITA NOS.2697 & 2698/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2014-15 4 ITO, TDS-2, SURAT IN ITA NO.3360/AHD/2014 FOR AY 20 13-14 AND OTHERS. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULL Y GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE IS SUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE B ENCH IN THE CASE OF LIONS CLUB OF NORTH SURAT CHARITABLE TRUST VS. I TO IN ITA NOS.3274, 3275 & 3276/AHD/2014 FOR ASST. YEAR 2013- 14, VIDE ORDER DATED 3.9.2015, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED AS UNDER :- 4. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS N OW SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF SIBIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT - ITA NO.90/ASR/2015, VIDE ORDER DATED 9 TH JUNE, 2015, WHEREIN THE DIVISION BENCH HAS INTER ALIA OBSERVED AS UNDER :- 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. IN ADDITION TO HIS ARGUMENT ON THE MERITS, LEARNED COUNSEL HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE REPORTS ABOUT THE DECISIONS OF VAR IOUS HONBLE HIGH COURTS, INCLUDING HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF NARATH MAPILA LP SCHOOL VS UNION OF INDIA [WP (C) 31498/2013(J)], HONBLE KARA NATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADITHYA BIZOR P SOLUTIONS VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 6918- 6938/2014(T-IT), HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF OM PRAKASH DHOOT VS UNION OF INDIA [WP NO. 1981 OF 2014] AND O F HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA VS UNION O F INDIA [WP NO. 771 OF 2014], GRANTING STAY ON THE DEMANDS RAISED IN RESPE CT OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E. THE FULL TEXT OF THESE DECISIONS WERE NOT PRO DUCED BEFORE US. HOWEVER, AS ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE NO ORDERS FROM THE HONBLE COU RTS ABOVE RETRAINING US FROM OUR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS IN RESPECT OF THE I SSUES IN THIS APPEAL, AND AS, IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING, THIS APPEAL REQUIRES ADJU DICATION ON A VERY SHORT LEGAL ISSUE, WITHIN A NARROW COMPASS OF MATERIAL FA CTS, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. WE MAY PRODUCE, FOR READY REFERENCE, SECTION 23 4E OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2012 AND WAS BROUGHT IN TO EFFECT FROM 1ST JULY 2012. THIS STATUTORY PROVISION IS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NOS.2697 & 2698/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2014-15 5 234E. FEE FOR DEFAULTS IN FURNISHING STATEMENTS (1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WHERE A PERSON FAILS TO DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED A STATEME NT WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR THE PROVISO TO SUBSECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C, HE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY, BY WAY OF FEE, A SUM OF TWO HUNDRED RUPEES FOR EVERY DAY DURI NG WHICH THE FAILURE CONTINUES. (2) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE OR COLLECTIBLE, AS THE CASE MAY BE. (3) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL BE PAID BEFORE DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO BE DELIVERED A STATE MENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR T HE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C. (4) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO A STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR TH E PROVISO TO SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C WHICH IS TO BE DELIVERE D OR CAUSED TO BE DELIVERED FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OR TAX COLLECT ED AT SOURCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2 012. 6. WE MAY ALSO REPRODUCE THE SECTION 200A WHICH WA S INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2009 WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 2010. T HIS STATUTORY PROVISION, AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, WAS AS FOLLOWS : 200A: PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SO URCE (1) WHERE A STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE, O R A CORRECTION STATEMENT, HAS BEEN MADE BY A PERSON DEDUCTING ANY S UM (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS DEDUCTOR) UNDER SECT ION 200, SUCH STATEMENT SHALL BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, NAMELY: ITA NOS.2697 & 2698/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2014-15 6 (A) THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE COMPUTED AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS, NAMELY: (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE STATEMENT; OR (II) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMAT ION IN THE STATEMENT; (B) THE INTEREST, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENT; (C) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF AMOUNT COMPUTED U NDER CLAUSE (B) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 200 AND SECTIO N 201, AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST; (D) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AND SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUSE (C); AND (E) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PUR SUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (C) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR: PROVIDED THAT NO INTIMATION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE SENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YE AR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED. EXPLANATION : FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, 'AN INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT' SHA LL MEAN A CLAIM, ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY, IN THE STATEMENT (I) OF AN ITEM, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANOTHER ENTRY OF THE SAME OR SOME OTHER ITEM IN SUCH STATEMENT; (II) IN RESPECT OF RATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOUR CE, WHERE SUCH RATE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS UND ER SUB-SECTION (1), THE BOARD MAY MAKE A SCHEME FOR CENTRALISED PROCESS ING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO EXPEDITIOUSLY DETERMINE T HE TAX PAYABLE BY, OR THE REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR AS REQUIRED UNDER T HE SAID SUBSECTION. ITA NOS.2697 & 2698/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2014-15 7 7. BY WAY OF FINANCE ACT 2015, AND WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST JUNE 2015, THERE IS AN AMENDMENT IN SECTION 200A AND THIS AMENDMENT, AS ST ATED IN THE FINANCE ACT 2015, IS AS FOLLOWS: IN SECTION 200A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, IN SUB-SECTI ON (1), FOR CLAUSES (C) TO (E), THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED WIT H EFFECT FROM THE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2015, NAMELY: (C) THE FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E; (D) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUNT COMPUT ED UNDER CLAUSE (B) AND CLAUSE (C) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 200 OR SECTION 201 OR SECTION 234E AND ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WA Y OF TAX OR INTEREST OR FEE; (E) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AND SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUSE (D); AND (F) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PUR SUANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE (D) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR. 8. IN EFFECT THUS, POST 1ST JUNE 2015, IN THE COUR SE OF PROCESSING OF A TDS STATEMENT AND ISSUANCE OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A IN RESPECT THEREOF, AN ADJUSTMENT COULD ALSO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 234E . THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT WHAT IS IMPUGNED IN APPEAL BEFORE US I S THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, AS STATED IN SO MANY WORDS IN THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION ITSELF, AND, AS THE LAW STOOD, PRIOR TO 1ST JUNE 20 15, THERE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISION THEREIN FOR RAISING A DEMAND IN RESPECT O F LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E. WHILE EXAMINING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE INTIMA TION UNDER SECTION 200A, WE HAVE TO BE GUIDED BY THE LIMITED MANDATE OF SECT ION 200A, WHICH, AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, PERMITTED COMPUTATION OF AM OUNT RECOVERABLE FROM, OR PAYABLE TO, THE TAX DEDUCTOR AFTER MAKING THE FOLLO WING ADJUSTMENTS: (A). AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ARITHME TICAL ERRORS AND INCORRECT CLAIMS APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEME NT - SECTION 200A(1)(A) (B). AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT FOR INTEREST, IF ANY, COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENT. - SECTION 200A(1)(B) ITA NOS.2697 & 2698/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2014-15 8 9. NO OTHER ADJUSTMENTS IN THE AMOUNT REFUNDABLE T O, OR RECOVERABLE FROM, THE TAX DEDUCTOR, WERE PERMISSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE LAW AS IT EXISTED AT THAT POINT OF TIME. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, IN OUR CONSI DERED VIEW, THE ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEES UNDER SECTION 234E WAS I NDEED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 200A. THIS INTIMATION IS AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER SECTION 246A(A), AND, THE REFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED LEGALITY OF THE ADJUSTMENT MADE UNDER THIS INTIMATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE SCOPE OF THE SECTION 200A. LEARNED CIT (A) HAS NOT DONE SO. HE HAS JUSTIFIED THE LEVY OF FEES ON THE BASIS OF THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 234E. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER SUCH A LEV Y COULD BE EFFECTED IN THE COURSE OF INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A. THE ANSWER IS CLEARLY IN NEGATIVE. NO OTHER PROVISION ENABLING A DEMAND IN RESPECT OF THI S LEVY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO US AND IT IS THUS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT IN T HE ABSENCE OF THE ENABLING PROVISION UNDER SECTION 200A, NO SUCH LEVY COULD BE EFFECTED. AS INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A, RAISING A DEMAND OR DIRECTING A REFUND TO THE TAX DEDUCTOR, CAN ONLY BE PASSED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR WITHIN WHICH THE RELATED TDS STATEMENT IS FILED, AND AS TH E RELATED TDS STATEMENT WAS FILED ON 19TH FEBRUARY 2014, SUCH A LEVY COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN MADE AT BEST WITHIN 31ST MARCH 2015. THAT TIME HAS ALREADY ELAPS ED AND THE DEFECT IS THUS NOT CURABLE EVEN AT THIS STAGE. IN VIEW OF THESE DI SCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF FEE S UNDER SECTION 234 E IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE GRI EVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 5. WHEN THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HE DID NOT HAVE MUCH T O SAY EXCEPT TO PLACE HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. H E FAIRLY DID NOT DISPUTE THAT THE PROVISIONS ACCEPTING LEVY OF LATE FILING FEES UNDER SECTION 234E HAVE INDEED BEEN BROUGHT TO THE STATUTE W.E.F. 1 ST JUNE,, 2015 AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED MUCH BEFORE THAT DATE. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, I HEREBY DELETE THE LEVY OF LATE FILING FEES IN ALL T HESE THREE APPEALS UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT BY WAY OF IMPUGNED INTIMATION ISSUED. T HE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. ITA NOS.2697 & 2698/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2014-15 9 THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER. WE SET ASIDE THE O RDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE. IN TH E RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 26 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015 SD/- SD/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (SHAILENDRA K. YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED : 26/11/2015 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY.REGISTRAR,ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NOS.2697 & 2698/AHD/2015 ASST. YEAR 2014-15 10 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 23/11/2015 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 26/11/2015 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 26/11/2015 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: