Sabitri Nayak, Ganjam V. Addl CIT,

ITA 325/CTK/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 32522114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K NEB; S C MOHANTYDRS
• Assessee Lawyers: B K MAHAPATRA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund
• Section: 68; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , H ONBLE SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A.NO. 325 AND 330/CTK/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 1 . SMT. SABITRI NAYAK , TRINATH NAGAR, BRAHMAPUR, GANJAM 760 009, PAN:ADIPN 8399 J 2 . SUDARSHAN NAYAK , PAN NO.ACHPN 4215 F A DDRESS: AS ABOVE. - - - VERSUS - ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, BERHAMPUR RANGE, BERHAMPUR. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI B.K. MAHAPATRA, AR / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SHRI N.K.NEB & S.C.MOHANTY,DRS / DATE OF HEARING: 02.11.2012 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.11.2012 / ORDER . . , , SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THE APPEALS WERE BELATEDLY FILED WHICH CONDO NATION PETITION HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 26 AND 27 DAYS RESPECTIVELY AND ADMIT THE APPEALS FOR HEARING. 2. THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ARE IN RESPECT OF HUSBAND AND WIFE, NAMELY SHRI SUDARSHAN NA YAK AND SMT. SABITRI NAYAK RESPECTIVELY, WHICH ISSUES RAISED BY THEM RESPECTIVELY ARE ON THE BASIS OF COMMON FACTS WHICH WERE ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FACTS A S BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. WE PROPOSE TO DISPOSE OF THESE TWO APPEALS TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY INSOFAR AS THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME BY THE I.T.A.NO. 325 AND 330/CTK/2012 2 ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE RETURNS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES WERE DEALT WITH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON CONSIDERATION IN IDE NTICAL MANNER. 4. THE MAIN GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME BY GIVING A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEES COULD NOT HAVE EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON THE BASIS OF HOLDING AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH PARTLY WAS ALSO PROCURED DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBJECTED TO FINDING OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS WHETHER COULD BE FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME ALONE. 5. THE FACTS FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI SUDARSHAN NAYAK ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOM E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 SHOWING HIS TOTAL INCOME AT 17, 90,406 AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 6, 20,000. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED 6,00,000 AS FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCE UNDER SECTION 68 AND 8,02,346 TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED AND 26,810 TOWARDS EARLIER YEARS EXPENSES. ASSESSEE RECEIVED 10,60,197 FROM HIS FATHER THROUGH A WILINAMA OUT OF WHICH 6,00,000 WAS DISALLOWED NOT AVAILABLE TO HIM AS FOR CONSIDERATION OF FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BUT OUT OF 8,02,046 A SUM 1,82,346 WAS PREVIOUS Y E ARS BALANCE AND 6,20,000 SHOWN AS AGRICULTURAL IN COME (BOTH AMOUNTS EARLY MENTIONED IN THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT AS WELL AS IN THE STATEMENT OF THE INCOME ). THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) TRIED TO BALANCE THE INVESTMENTS IN VARIOUS PROPERTIES AND IN AGRICULTURAL LAND VIS - A - VIS THE SOURCE OF FUND AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE FYS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 WERE PREPARED WAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING INVESTMENT MADE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES ON THE BASIS OF RE - CASTED CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. AFTER HAVING VERIFIED THE SAME, HE ADDED UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AMOUNTING TO 6 LAKHS, UNEXPLAINED I.T.A.NO. 325 AND 330/CTK/2012 3 INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO 8,02,810 WHICH HE ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 17,90,406. 6. AGGRI EVED, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SUBMITTING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A WRONG ASSUMPTION BY ADDING A SUM OF 8, 02,346 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ABOUT 14 ACRE OF LANDS. HE IS HAVING REGULAR CULTIVATION ON THOSE LANDS. IT IS UNJUSTIFIED TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING ANY INCOME FROM THOSE SOURCES AT ALL . HENCE ADDITION OF 6,20 ,000 IS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE. FUND - FLO W IS A CONTINUOUS PROCESS FROM YEAR TO YEAR. ASSESSEE IS ALSO ASSES SED SINCE SEVERAL YEARS LAST. HENCE OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 1 ,82,346 ADDED IN CURRENT YEARS INCOME WAS N O T JUSTIFIED. THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A BUSINESSMAN, AND HE WAS ASS ESSED TO INCOME TAX SINCE LAST 5 YEARS. HE DIED AT THE AGE OF 73 YEARS . HENCE O PENIN G CAPITAL AS ON 01.04.2001 IS 6 , 00 , 000 IS QUITE ADEQUATE. THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE ANDRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF R.B. MITTAL VS . CIT 165 CTR 366, AND HONHLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NANAK CHANDRA LAXMAN DAS VS . CIT RELIED UPON BY THE AO TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCL USION IS BASED ON WRONG PREMISE AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFEREN T . HENCE THE RATIO OF JUDGMENT WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO PRESENT CA SE. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISPOSED OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY CONSIDE RING THE ASSESSEE APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH FURTHER DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DICTUM OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL (214 ITR 801) HELD THAT THE INCOME SOUGHT TO BE TAXED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED. 8. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL SUBMITTING THAT THE COMPUTATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON THE BASIS OF PRODUCE CANNOT BE ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PARTLY. SIMILARLY IMPORTING MATERIAL AVAILABLE FOR I.T.A.NO. 325 AND 330/CTK/2012 4 INVESTM ENT IN EARLIER YEARS ON THE BASIS OF EXPENDITURE PERTAINING TO THAT YEAR CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN THIS YEAR INSOFAR AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ONLY TRIED TO CONSIDER THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME COULD HAVE ONLY GENERATED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH WAS NOT TO BE TAXED FROM OTHER SOURCES OR FOR THAT MATTER EVEN FOR RATE PURPOSES WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN HE INCLUDED THE VERY AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE ASSETS. 9. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. SABITRI NAYAK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECASTED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENTS AS FOLLOWS. HE, THEREFORE, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(3) ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 9,83,500 A SUM OF 4,33,100 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND ALSO DISALLOW EXPENSES FOR THE EARLIER YEAR CLAIMED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNTING TO 4 4,807. 10. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SUBMITTING THAT THE A SSESSEE IS HAVING ABOUT 8 ACRE S OF LAND . IT IS UNFAIR TO SUGGEST THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING ANY INCOME FROM THOSE SOURCES. THE I.T.A.NO. 325 AND 330/CTK/2012 5 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A WRONG ASSUMPTION BY ADDING A SUM OF 4,33,100 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. FUND FLOW IS A CONTINUOUS PROCESS FROM YEAR TO YEAR. ASSESSEE IS ALSO ASSESSED SINCE SEVERAL YEARS LAST. HENCE, OPENING BALANCE OF 1,83,619 ADDED IN CURRENT YEARS INCOME WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 11. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSI DERED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOTED IN A STATEMENT U/S.13 1 TAKEN IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S.133A THAT DIRECTLY INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE SUCH INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WHICH ULTIMATELY LED TO THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT TO CONSIDER AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT ALL RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO TAX THE AMOUNTS AS MENTIONED ABOVE. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE A UTHORITIES BELOW HAVE CONTRADICTED THEIR OWN FINDINGS INSOFAR AS EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO DENY THE ASSESSEE THE LEGITIMATE CLAM OF HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH ALONE COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR INVESTMENT IN THE ASSETS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AT A FIGURE WHICH WERE ACCEPTABLE TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE TOOK UPON ITSELF TO FIND OUT THE AVAILABILITY OF SOURCE IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSES BY RECASTING THE CASH FLOWS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEN ON THE BASIS OF HIS FINDING THAT THE ASSETS DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SOURCE OF INCOME RENDERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO DID NOT SPECIFICALLY CONSIDER THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME THE SOURCE HE HAD BEEN CONSIDERING COULD BE TAXED FROM OTHER SOURCES INSOFA R AS THE UTILIZATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AGAIN JUSTIFIED THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENYING THE ASSESSEE HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH OTHERWISE HAD BEEN RENDERED IN FAVOUR OF THE I.T.A.NO. 325 AND 330/CTK/2012 6 ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF WHEN HE CHOSE TO TAX UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES. IN FACT IN CASE OF SHRI SUDARSHAN NAYAJ, THE AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED TO BE FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS ACTUALLY TH E AMOUNT OF INCOME HELD IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEES FATHER WHEN THE AMOUNT OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WAS EXPLAINED WAS THROUGH THE WILL OF THE FATHER WHEN THE LATE FATHER HOLDING MONEY WAS DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS IS A REASON FOR A RECASTED CASH FLOW WHEN HE HAS INCLUDED THE EXCESS OUTFLOW OVER THE INFLOW ON THE SAME SIDE WHEN THE SUM OF 6 LAKHS WAS CONSIDERED BY HIM WAS PART OF 10,60,197 LEFT BY THE ASSESSEES FATHER TO BE UTILIZED BY SHRI SUDARSHAN NAYAK. 11. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSE E HAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES HAVE GOT NO RIGHT TO PARTLY AGREE TO THE PROPOSITION THAT THE FATHER WHO WAS HOLDING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH DEVOLVE ON THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE COULD RENDER THE SAME INCOME WHICH HITHERTO WAS NOT TO BE CONS IDERED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HAVING ACCEPTED THE FATHERS SOURCE OF INCOME AND HAVING AGREED TO THE PROPOSITION THAT THE FATHER WAS HOLDING THE LAND FROM WHICH INCOME WAS GENERATED EARLIER WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES THEREFORE CLINCHES THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HAVING RECASTED THE CASH FLOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT DENY THAT THE INVESTMENT HAD NOT BEEN MADE FROM THE VERY AVAILABILITY OF SOURCE EITHER O N THE BASIS OF WILL OF THE FATHER WHEN THE FATHER WAS AN INCOME - TAX PAYEE AND IT RENDERED AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE SAME SOURCE WHICH WAS NOW SHARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WIFE BEING THE LONE SURVIVORS. HE SUBMITTED THEREFORE THAT THE WHOLE EXERCISE OF COM PUTING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEES BECOME S A FUTILITY INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT SUBJECTED THE SAME TO BE RENDERED EITHER FOR RATE PURPOSE OR AS FOR I.T.A.NO. 325 AND 330/CTK/2012 7 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BUT BY ACTUALLY POINTING OUT THAT THE INVESTMENT REMAINED UNEXPLAINED U/S.69. HE PRAYED THAT THE AMOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN SHOWN INVESTED AGAINST THE VERY AGRICULTURAL INCOME FALL SHORT TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME MAY THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED FOR TAXATION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY HOLDING THE SOURCE AND INVESTMENT SIMULTANEOUSLY COMPUTED FOR ADDITION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. THE LEARNED DR OPPOSED THE CONTENTION INSOFAR AS THE ASESSEES COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE GENERATING INCOME AT ALL AND WAS THEREFORE CO NSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXING THE SAME U/S.69C. 13. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON THIS ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE CASH FLOW W HICH ADDITION IS LESS THAN THE RETURNED INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE CLINCHES THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF DENYING THE ASSESSEE THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION CARRIED ON OR THE LAND HOLDING WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER MORE ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSEE CONTINUING THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION AS WERE BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE INCOME GENERATED HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO TAX IN THE EARLIER YEARS COULD NOW BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FEELS THAT SUCH INCOME COULD NOT BE GENERATED. THIS CONTRADICTS HIS BRINGING TO TAX EARLIER YEARS EXPENSES WHICH ARE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED FOR BOTH THE ASSESSEES. THE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCEPTABLE THEREFORE CO ULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR DOUBLE TAXATION INSOFAR AS THE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE WHICH SOURCE HAS BEEN ADDED CANNOT BE AGAIN ADDED IN THE SHAPE OF INVESTMENT THERE AGAINST. THE DENIAL OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATION THEREFORE SETTLES DOWN TO THE FACT THAT THE AGRI CULTURAL INCOME WAS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT TO BALANCE I.T.A.NO. 325 AND 330/CTK/2012 8 THE INVESTMENT HELD BY THE ASSESSEE INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED MORE INCOME THAN THE COMBINED DISALLOWANCE AS INVESTMENT AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE NAMELY SHRI SUDARSHAN NAYAK HAD RETURNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 6,20,000 AGAINST WHICH A SUM OF 8,02,345 HAS BEEN FOUND WHICH STOOD INVESTED AGAINST UNEXPLAINED SOURC E SHOULD BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO TAX 1,82,345 WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE CASH FLOW MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH HAD NOT BEEN RENDERED TO TAX WAS NOT O N THE BASIS OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATION BUT FROM OTHER SOURCES. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ST. SABITRI NAYAK WHO HAD DECLARED 2,20,000 AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SUBJECTED TO TAX AT INVESTMENT OF 4,33,100 SHOULD BE TAXED AT 2,13,100 WHICH INCO ME WILL BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES NOT DECLARED. WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADD THE ABOVE AMOUNTS RESPECTIVELY TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON TH E BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT ON RECORD. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. SD/ - SD/ - ( . . . ) , (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( ) DATE: 09.11.2012 ( ), (H.K.PADHEE), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY. I.T.A.NO. 325 AND 330/CTK/2012 9 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . / THE APPELLANT : 1 . SMT. SABITRI NAYAK , TRINATH NAGAR, BRAHMAPUR, GANJAM 760 009, PAN:ADIPN 8399 J 2 . SUDARSHAN NAYAK , PAN NO.ACHPN 4215 F ADDRESS: AS ABOVE. 2 / THE RESPONDENT: ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, BERHAMPUR RANGE, BERHAMPUR 3 . / THE CIT, 4 . ( )/ THE CIT(A), 5 . / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, APPENDIX XVII SEAL TO BE AFFIXED ON THE ORDER SHEET BY THE SR. P.S./P.S. AFTER DICTATI ON IS GIVEN 1. DATE OF DICTATION 05.11.2012 . 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 06.11.2012 OTHER MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4. D ATE 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 09.11.2012 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 ..