The ITO, Ward-7(3), Ahmedabad V. Shri Ramnikbhai H.Ambani(HUF), Ahmedabad

ITA 3176/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: 317620514 RSA 2008
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NOT DISPUTED T; IN EARLIER YEARS
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Business income; Business expenditure; Benefit of exemption

Judgement Text

ITA NO.3176 & CO 238/AHD/2008 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2005-06. 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHM EDABAD (BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, J.M. AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT ,A.M.) I.T.A. NO. 31 76 AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(3), AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) VS. RAMNIKBHAI H. AMBANI (HUF) VIMAL HOUSE, NARANPURA, AHMEDABAD. (RESPONDENT) C.O.A NO.2 38/AHD/2008 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A . NO. 3176 AHD/2008) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) RAMNIKBHAI H. AMBANI (HUF) VIMAL HOUSE, NARANPURA, AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(3), AHMEDABAD. (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAAHA 6235 K ON BEHALF OF REVENUE : SHRI KARTAR SINGH, CIT (D R) ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE : SHRI A.L THAKKAR. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 1-2-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 9-2-2012 PER: SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL READS AS UNDER: THE LD. CIT (A)-XI, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN 1 DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,97,26,365/- TREATING THE SAME AS EXEMPTED LONG ITA NO.3176 & CO 238/AHD/2008 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2005-06. 2 TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT INSTEAD OF TREATING THE SAME AS PROFIT DERIVED FROM BUSINESS OF TRADING OF SHARES AND SECU RITIES. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DOING BUSINESS OF SHAR ES AND SECURITIES. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED PROFIT ON SALE OF SHARES OF RS.370/-, THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES RS.22,968/-,DIVIDEND INCOME RS. 6,40,768/- WHICH CL AIMED EXEMPT U/S. 10 (34/35) AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS.4,97,25,265/-.THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS.4,97,26,365/- DE RIVED ON SALE OF SHARES OF RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., AND HENCE CLAIMED IT AS E XEMPT U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT. THE AO TAKEN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DERIVED FROM SALE O F SHARES AS TRADING PROFIT AND NOT AS CAPITAL GAIN, ON FOLLOWING BASIS: A. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME AS TRADING OF SHARES AND SECURITIES IN RETURN, DECLARING BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF SHARE TRADING. B. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AND SOLD SHARES OF RI L ON SAME DAYS FREQUENTLY DECLARING BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF SHARE TRADING. C. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONFIRMED IT AS BOOKING OF PRO FIT IN PARA-5 OF LETTER DATED 28-12-2007 DECLARING BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF SHARE TRA DING. D. LTCG IS CLAIMED ON THE BASIS OF THE SEPARATED FI GURES OF LONG TERM PROFIT FROM TRADING ACCOUNT FILED. CAPITAL GAIN IS NOW HERE MENTIONED IN ACCOUNTS. 3. THE CIT (A) AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION AND AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS JUDGMENTS DECIDED AS UNDER:- 3.2.1. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT OVER THE FACT THAT THE SHARES IN QUESTION HAD BEEN SHOWN AS INVESTMENT AN D NEVER BEEN TREATED AS BUSINESS ASSET NOR BEEN CONVERTED INTO STOCK IN TRA DE. SUCH ACCOUNTING TREATMENT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THE ACCOUNTING TREATMENT C LEARLY INDICATES THE INTENTION AND MOTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARDS T O HIS SHARE HOLDING. THE KARTA OF THE HUF IS A SENIOR CITIZEN AGED MORE THAN 75 YEARS AND IS RETIRED ITA NO.3176 & CO 238/AHD/2008 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2005-06. 3 FROM ACTIVE COMMERCIAL LIFE. OTHER THAN THE CAPITA L GAINS INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T SHOWN ANY INCOME WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS. THE FACTS OF TH E CASE CLEARLY REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PURELY AN INVESTOR AND THIS FACT IS AMPLY DEMONSTRATED BY HIS PURCHASE/SALE OF SOLITARY SCRIPT OF RIL AND NO OTHE R COMPANIES. THE MOTIVE AND INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO BECOMES CLEAR BY INVOLVING THE SCRIPT OF RIL ONLY. FURTHERMORE, THE PERUSAL OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DO NOT REVEAL ANY ORGANIZED OR SYSTEMATIC ACTIVITY PURSUED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH CAN FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF BUSINESS. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT CAPITAL OF HIS OWN WHICH HAS BEEN USED F OR MAKING INVESTMENTS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT MONIES HAVE BEE N BORROWED FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE FINANCIAL STAT EMENTS IT IS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE IN TH E NATURE OF SALARY, PETROL, CONVEYANCE OR OTHER BUSINESS RELATED OUTGOINGS. FUR THERMORE, THE ENTIRE PURCHASE/SALE OPERATIONS ARE SPANNING A PERIOD OF H ARDLY 20 DAYS IN THE ENTIRE YEAR. EVEN THE FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTIONS THO UGH NOT A CONCLUSIVE FACTOR IS NOMINAL. WHAT IS MOST PERTINENT IS THAT T HE SHARES OF RIL ACQUIRED IN THE YEAR OF APPEAL HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN SOLD IN TH E SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2006-07. THE SAID FACT WAS ALSO POINTED O UT BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING AN ATT ENTION WAS DRAWN TO PG.62 TO 71 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED IN SUPPORT OF HIS CON TENTION. ALL THESE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INVESTOR AND THEREFORE, THE PROFITS ARISING ON SALE OF SHARES SHOULD BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT BUSINESS INCOME. CONSIDERI NG THE RATIO OF JUDGMENTS IN THE CASES WHICH HAD BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE ASSE SSEE, I AM INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T REATING THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SHARES WHICH WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS I NVESTMENT AS TRADING IN SHARES AND SECURITIES IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 3.2.2. FURTHER, AS IT COULD BE SEEN THAT NO EVIDEN CE IS BROUGHT TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A TRADING OF SHARES LIKE BUYING AND SE LLING VERY FREQUENTLY, IF THE ASSESSEE HAD HELD THE SHARES FOR A PERIOD OF 3 TO 5 YEARS, THEN THE QUESTION OF TRADING THE SAID SALES OF SHARES AS TRA DING IS NOT CORRECT. THE AO APPEARS TO HAVE NOT DISPUTED THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO SHOULD HAVE ASCERTAINED WHETHER THE SHARES A RE HELD FOR A SHORT PERIOD OR HELD FOR A LONG TIME AS HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE DETAILS FILED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD HELD THE SHARES FOR A LONG TERM, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED FOR A TR ADING ACTIVITY. FURTHER, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN IN THE TRADING OF SHARES, THE N THERE COULD HAVE BEEN ITA NO.3176 & CO 238/AHD/2008 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2005-06. 4 FREQUENT PURCHASES AND SALES OF THE SHARES EITHER O F ONE COMPANY OR OF DIFFERENT COMPANIES. THIS IS, HOWEVER, NOT NOTICED IN ASSESSEES CASE. 3.2.3. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE SHARES ARE SOLD ONL Y AFTER 14 TH OCTOBER, 2004 AND BEFORE 25-2-2005 AND SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX AT RS.46,879/- ARE CLAIMED IN THE P & L ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED U/S.10(38) OF I.T. ACT ARE SEEM TO HAVE BEEN SATISF IED BY THE ASS3ESSEE, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SHARES SOLD AFTER 1-10-20 04 WHICH ARE NOT TO BE TAXED FOR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IF THEY ARE HELD MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND FURTHER SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX SHOULD HAVE BEEN P AID ON SALE OF SUCH SHARES. 3.2.4. THE SHARES IN QUESTION HAVING BEEN SOLD AS INVESTMENT, THE SURPLUS ARISING FROM THE TRANSACTION OF SALE THEREOF IS LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(38) OF THE I. T. ACT, THE SAME IS EXEMPT. THE AO IS THEREFORE, NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE A SSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(38) OF THE I. T. ACT IN RESPECT O F THE SURPLUS ON SALE OF THE SHARES IN QUESTION. 3.2.5. THEREFORE, HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES AND FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WHICH ARE RELIED UPON BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. IS NOT JUS TIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS THEREFORE, DELETED . THUS, THE GROUND NUMBERS 2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES , RECORDS PERUSED. THE ISSUE IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION TO BE EXAMINED IS W HETHER THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SHARES TRANSACTION IS TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME OR AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. FOR T HE PURPOSE OF ASSESSING BUSINESS INCOME, WE HAVE TO SEE THE MEANING OF THE WORD BUS INESSES. THE WORD BUSINESS CONSIST POSSIBILITY OF EXISTENCE OF CERTAIN ELEMENT S IN THE ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE WHICH WAS INVESTOR WITH THE CHARACTER OF BUSINESS. IN EAC H CASE THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED ON BUSINESS MUST NECESSARI LY BE APPROACHED IN THE LIGHT OF INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING REGARD TO THE LEGA L REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE ITA NO.3176 & CO 238/AHD/2008 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2005-06. 5 ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONCEPT OF BUSINESS. AS OBSERVE D BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF GUJARAT V. RAIPUR MANUFACTURING CO. LTD . [1967] 19 STC 1 (SC) THAT INDEXING ITSELF THE WORD BUSINESS IS USED IN THE SENSE OF AN OPTION OR PROFESSION WHICH OCCUPIES THE TIME ATTENTION AND LABOUR BY A P ERSON, NORMALLY WITH THE OBJECT OF MAKING THE PROFIT. TO REFER THE ACTIVITY AS BUSI NESS THERE MUST BE A COURSE OF DEALINGS EITHER ACTUALLY CONTINUED OR CONTEMPLATED TO BE CONTINUED WITH A PROFIT MOTIVE AND NOT FOR THE SUPPORT OR PLEASURE, WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON CARRIES ON BUSINESS IN THE PARTICULAR COMMODITY MUST DEPEND UP ON THE VOLUME, FREQUENCY, CONTINUED AND MOTIVATION MUST ORDINARILY BE ENTERED INTO WITH A PROFIT MOTIVE. SUCH MOTIVE MUST PROVIDE HOW THE SERIES OF TRANSACT IONS EFFECTED BY THE PERSON IN THE COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. 5. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION WE NOTICED THAT EACH CASE HAS TO DECIDE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THAT CASE. IF WE CONSIDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION WE NOTICE THAT THE CIT (A) HAS CLEARL Y NOTED THE FACT THAT THE SHARES IN QUESTION HAD BEEN SOLD AS INVESTMENT AND NOTHING HAS BEEN TREATING AS BUSINESS ASSET NOR IT HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO STOCK IN TRADE . THIS PRACTICE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE REVENU E DID NOT DISPUTE ABOUT THAT. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE CIT (A) THAT INTENTION AND MOTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE SHARE TRANSACTION WAS HOLDING SHARES AS INVESTM ENT. THE KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE HUF IS A SENIOR CITIZEN AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS AND HAS RETIRED FROM ACTIVE COMMERCIAL LIFE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED BY FILING DOCUM ENTS AND MATERIAL PURCHASE AND SALE SCRIPT OF RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PURELY AN INVESTOR. THE CIT (A) HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD BASIS ON WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON SHARE TRANSACTION IN ORGANIZED AND SYSTEMATIC ACTIVITIES, EMPLOYED STAFF AND OTHERS THE BASIS ON WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF BUSINESS. THE CIT (A) HAS ALSO ITA NO.3176 & CO 238/AHD/2008 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2005-06. 6 EXAMINED THE ISSUE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF CAPITA L INVESTMENT AND NOTED THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT CAPITAL OF HIS OWN W HICH WAS USED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REV ENUE THAT MONIES HAVE BEEN BORROWED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT. THE CIT (A) HAS ALS O NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE OF SALARY, PETROL, CO NVEYANCE OR OTHER BUSINESS EXPENSES. THE CIT (A) NOTED THAT THE SHARES OF RELI ANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., ACQUIRED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVING BEEN SOLD IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE CIT (A) THAT THERE IS EV IDENCE THE BASIS ON WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DONE TRADING IN SHARE S SELLING THEM FREQUENTLY. THE ASSESSEE HELD THE SHARES FOR A PERIOD OF 3 TO 5 YEA RS BEFORE SELLING THE SAME. 6. THE LD. AR REFERRED THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31-3 -2004 OF WHICH COPY HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGES 56 TO 91 OF ASSESSEES PAPER B OOK AND POINTED OUT THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET HAS SHOWN THE SHARES AS INVESTMENT. T HE LD. AR REFERRED TO PAGE 72 AND 73 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE COPY OF THE COMPUTAT ION AND RETURN FILED FOR A.Y. 2004-05 HAS BEEN PLACED. IN THE SAID COMPUTATION TH E ASSESSEE DECLARED CAPITAL GAIN ON SIMILAR TYPE OF TRANSACTION AND SAME HAVE BEEN A CCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. AS REGARDS THE FREQUENCY OF THE TRANSACTION, THE LD. A R. REFERRED TO PAGE 42 OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AND DEMONSTRATED THAT THE HOL DING OF SHARES FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES FOR REASONABLY FOR A LONGER PERIOD. THE DE TAILS OF SHARES PURCHASED AND SOLD ARE GIVEN. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE SAID STATEMENT IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING THE SHARES AS INVESTMENT F OR A LONGER PERIOD E.G. 750 SHARES OF RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., PURCHASED ON3-2 -98 WERE SOLD ON 14-10-04. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE ADMITTED FACTS OF THE CASE WE AGREE WITH THE FINDI NG OF THE CIT (A), AS THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RELEVANT MATERIAL THAT IT IS ASSESSABLE AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THERE IS N O MATERIAL ON RECORD. NEITHER, ITA NO.3176 & CO 238/AHD/2008 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2005-06. 7 SAME HAS BEEN POINTED OUT LATER THAT THE SHARE TRAN SACTION WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN A SYSTEMATIC AND ORGANIZED MANNER JUST TO EARN PROFIT. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE AO HIMSELF DID NOT ASSESS DIVIDEND INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO. WHEN THE ASSESSE E CONSISTENTLY CARRIED OUT THE SAME ACTIVITIES AS IN EARLIER YEAR, THE AO CANNOT C HANGE THE HEAD OF THE INCOME WITHOUT ANY BASIS IN PARTICULAR YEAR I.E. YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. WE THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 7. AS REGARDS EXEMPTION ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN U /S. 10(38) WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE HEAD UNDER WHICH IT IS TO BE A SSESSED AS WE CONFIRM FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (A) THAT THE INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE REVENUE DID NOT POINT OUT ANY MATERIAL FOR THE SAID LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD NOT BE EXEMPT U/S. 10(38). WE THEREFORE, CONFIRM T HE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 8. GROUND RAISED IN CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINED TO REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 147 OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND HA S NOT BEEN PRESSED BY THE LD. AR., THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND C.O . BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 9 - 2 - 201 2. SD/- SD/- (D. K. TYAGI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. ITA NO.3176 & CO 238/AHD/2008 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2005-06. 8 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-XI, AHMEDABAD. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD. 1.DATE OF DICTATION 2 - 2 -2012 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 8 / 2 / 2012 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S - -2012. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT - -2012 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S - -2012 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK - -2012. 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..