Jayatma Informatics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy. CIT, (OSD)-1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 3575/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6290 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Keywords: Business expenditure
• Section: 43B; 142(1); 14A

Judgement Text

, *CH* *CH**CH* *CH* IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER !# I.T.A. NOS. 3576 & 3575/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 & 2011-12) JAYATMA INFORMATICS PVT. LTD. 259, 3 RD FLOOR, P. JAYANTILAL, NEW CLOTH MARKET, AHMEDABAD. # VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD $ # % & # PAN/GIR NO. : AAACK 6167 H ( !$' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' # RESPONDENT ) !$') # APPELLANT BY : SMT MANISH SHAH, A.R. ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : MS. SONIA KUMAR, SR. D.R. + ,*-. / DATE OF HEARING 17/01/2018 /012*-. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23/01/2018 3# O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE ARE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, AHME DABAD, DATED 18/11/2015 & 23/10/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS (A YS) 2012-13 & 2011-12. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO .3576/AHD/2015 FOR ASST. YEAR 2012-13: ITA NOS.3576 & 3575/AHD/2015 JAYATMA INFORMATICS PVT. LTD VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS -2012-13 & 2011-12 - 2 - 1. THE C.I.T.(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF RS.1,89,212/- U/S.36(1)(VA) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 BEI NG THE PAYMENT TO EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO P.F. AND ESIC THOUGH THE SAID PAYMENT WAS MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF R ETURN. 2. THE C.I.T.(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS.36,934/- U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BEI NG PAYMENT OF CONSULTING SERVICE MADE TO BSI MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (I ) PVT. LTD. 3. THE C.I.T.(APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN CO NFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,89,755/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.3,78,275/ - BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.14A OF THE ACT BEING THE ALLEGED DISALL OWANCE OF INTEREST AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II) U/S.14A OF THE ACT. 4. THE C.I.T.(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS.1,47,826/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXP. U/S .14A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND, ALT ER OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS STATED HEREINABOVE EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECO RDS ARE THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IT ENABLED SERVICES, SYSTEM INTEGRATION SERVICES AND TRADING OF HARDWARE AND SO FTWARE. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WAS FILED ELECTR ONICALLY ON 26/09/2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,06,35,249 /-. THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS BEEN AUDITED UNDER THE CO MPANY'S ACT 1956 AND U/S 44AB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961.THE RETURN WAS DULY PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE CASE WAS SELECTED F OR SCRUTINY AND IN RESPONSE TO VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT. 4. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.3576 & 3575/AHD/2015 JAYATMA INFORMATICS PVT. LTD VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS -2012-13 & 2011-12 - 3 - 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.1 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF DELAY IN PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO ESIC & PF AMOUNTING TO R S.1,89,212/- IS CONCERNED. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A PPELLANT WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY AS TO WHY THE LATE PAYMENTS OF EMPLOYEES ' CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESIC AMOUNTING TO RS.1,70,956/- AND RS.18,526/- RESPECTIVELY AGGREGATING TO RS.1,89,212/- SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOW ED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSE E HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS PAID THE SAID AMOUNT TILL THE DUE DATE OF FILIN G THE RETURN AND THEREFORE NOT LIABLE AS INCOME U/S.36(VA) OF THE ACT. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT MADE ADDITION OF THE SAID SUM TO RETURNED INCOME RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF CIT VS. AIMIL L IMITED (DELHI HIGH COURT) WHICH IS REPORTED BY THE TAX AUDITOR OF THE AT ANNEXURE-E OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. HOWEVER IGNORING THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSE E, THE LD.AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,89,212/- MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID SUM WAS NOT DEPOSITED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT AL LOWED AS PER THE PROVISION OF PROVIDENT FUND AND MISC. PROVISION ACT ,1952. 5.1 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION, THIS ISSUE IS A GAINST THE APPELLANT AND GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR ON THIS P OINT IN THE MATTER OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION. R ELEVANT PART OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NOS.3576 & 3575/AHD/2015 JAYATMA INFORMATICS PVT. LTD VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS -2012-13 & 2011-12 - 4 - 'SECTION 43B, READ WITH SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961 - BUSINESS DISALLOWANCE - CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS TO BE AL LOWED ON ACTUAL PAYMENT (EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION) - WHETHER WHERE AN EMPLOYER HAS NOT CREDITED SUM RECEIVED BY IT AS EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUT ION TO EMPLOYEES' ACCOUNT IN RELEVANT FUND ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE AS P RESCRIBED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VA), ASSESSES SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF SUCH AMOUNT THOUGH HE DEPOSITS SAME BE FORE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 43B I.E., PRIOR TO FILING OF RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) - HELD, YES - ASSESSEE STATE TRANSPORT CORPO RATION COLLECTED A SUM BEING PROVIDENT FUND CONTRIBUTION FROM ITS EMPL OYEES - HOWEVER, IT HAD DEPOSITED LESSER SUM IN PROVIDENT FUND ACCOUNT - ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED SAME UNDER SECTION 43B - HOWEVER, COMMIS SIONER (APPEALS) DELETED DISALLOWANCE ON GROUND THAT EMPLOYEE, CONTR IBUTION WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE FILING RETURN - WHETHER SINCE ASSESSES HAD NO DEPOSITED SAID CONTRIBUTION IN RESPECTIVE FUND ACCOUNT ON DAT E AS PRESCRIBED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VA), DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUST AND PROPER - HELD, YES [PARA 8] [I N FAVOUR OF REVENUE]' 5.2 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE. 6. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.2 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S .40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, 1961 BEING PAYMENT OF CONSULTING SERVICE MADE TO BSI MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (I) PVT. LTD. IS CONCERNED. DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED AS TO WHY TDS AS PER THE PR OVISION OF SECTION 194J IS NOT DEDUCTED ON PAYMENT OF RS.36,934/- TO B SI MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (I) PVT LTD. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT FROM THE COPY OF INVOICE OF BSI MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (I) PVT LT D ATTACHED WITH THE SUBMISSION, IT IS SEEN THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS.36,9 34/- TO BSI MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS PVT LTD INCLUDES RE-IMBURSEMENT TOWARDS TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS.6,934/- WHICH SEPARATELY SHOWN IN THE INVOICE. ITA NOS.3576 & 3575/AHD/2015 JAYATMA INFORMATICS PVT. LTD VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS -2012-13 & 2011-12 - 5 - FURTHER, AS THE PAYMENT OF PROFESSIONAL FEES TO THE SAID PARTY DOES NOT EXCEED RS.30,000/-, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194J O F THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE. 6.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE O PINION THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT WILL BE APPLIC ABLE. HENCE, 20% WILL BE DISALLOWED IN THE LIGHT OF PROVISO SEC. 194J AND AO IS DIRECTED TO CALCULATE THE SAME. 7. SO FAR AS CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,89,755 /- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.3,78,275/- BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 14A OF THE ACT BEING THE ALLEGED DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AS PER RULE 8D (2)(II) U/S.14A OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF I.T. ACT SHOULD NOT BE APP LIED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN RECEIPT OF D IVIDEND INCOME AND INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS.22,26,526/ - WHICH IS CLAIMED EXEMPT IN RETURN OF INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY HAS SUBMITTED THE STATEMENT OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND FROM WHICH IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SUFF ICIENT FREE RESERVE AND CAPITAL TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND AND THERE FORE NO PART IF INTEREST CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE IS TO BE C ONSIDERED U/S.14A OF THE ACT. BUT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY IS HAVING HUGE ITA NOS.3576 & 3575/AHD/2015 JAYATMA INFORMATICS PVT. LTD VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS -2012-13 & 2011-12 - 6 - AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE GOOD AMOUNT OF INVESTME NT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND DISALLOWED RS. 5,26,100/- U/S.14A R.W.S 8D OF THE ACT BEING EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELA TION TO INCOME NOT FORMING PART OF TOTAL INCOME. IN APPEAL LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,89,755/-. 7.1 WE CAN SEE THE TOTAL INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILA BLE WITH THE COMPANY IS RS.559.95 LACS I.E. SHARE CAPITAL RS.6.00 LACS A ND FREE RESERVE RS.553.95 LACS WHEREAS INVESTMENT MADE IN SHARES AN D MUTUAL FUNDS PUT TOGETHER IS RS.524.32 LACS AND THEREFORE IT IS CRYS TAL CLEAR THAT NO INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAS BEEN DIVERTED IN MAKING INVESTMEN T IN MUTUAL FUND AND THEREFORE NO PART OF INTEREST EXPENSES BE DISALLOWE D U/S.14A OF THE ACT. LD. AR CITED A JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTI LITIES AND POWER LIMITED IN ITA NO.1398 OF 2008, WHEREIN THE ISSUE B EFORE THE HIGH COURT WAS THAT WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAD ENOUGH INTEREST FREE FUNDS AT ITS DISPOSAL FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SISTER CONCERN AN D THEREBY NO INTEREST IS DISALLOWABLE. 7.2 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. SINCE COMPANY IS HAVING RS.559.95 LACS I.E. SHARE CAPITAL RS.6.00 LACS AND FREE RESERVE RS.553.95 LACS, WHEREAS INVESTMENT MADE IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS PUT TOGETHER IS RS.524.32 LACS AND RELYING ON THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE. ITA NOS.3576 & 3575/AHD/2015 JAYATMA INFORMATICS PVT. LTD VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS -2012-13 & 2011-12 - 7 - 8. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.4 REGARDING CONFIRMING THE A DDITION OF RS.1,47,826/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXP. U/S .14A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS CONCERNED. ON PERUSAL OF RETURN OF INCOME, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME AND INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUND AMOUNTING TO RS.22,26,526/- DURING THE YEAR AND CLA IMED AS EXEMPT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NON-CURRENT INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.78,17,164/- AND INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS.4,86 ,15,235/- AGGREGATING TO RS.5,64,32,499/- IN ITS BALANCE SHEE T DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS AGAINST NON-CURRENT INVESTMENT OF RS.66,09,622/- AND INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS.28,80,96 6/- AGGREGATING TO RS.94,90,588/- IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DEBITED INTEREST EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.17,50,5 94/- IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS REQUESTED TO SHOW-CAUSE AS TO WHY T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULE, 1 962 SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN ITS CASE. IN RESPONSE TO SAID NOTICE, AS SESSEES REPLY AS UNDER: DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITH THE REPLY O F AIR ON INVESTMENT MADE WITH VARIOUS MUTUAL FUNDS TOGETHER WITH COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT FILED WITH REPLY DATED 28 TH AUGUST, 2014, SO FAR THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT IS CONCERNED, IT IS TO ST ATE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SUFFICIENT FREE RESERVE AND CAPITAL TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH CAN BE SEEN FROM THE STATEMENT O F SOURCE FILED HEREWITH. FURTHER ON THE FACTS STATED ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT NO PART OF INTEREST CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE IS TO B E CONSIDERED U/S.14A OF THE ACT,' ITA NOS.3576 & 3575/AHD/2015 JAYATMA INFORMATICS PVT. LTD VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS -2012-13 & 2011-12 - 8 - 8.2 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IM PUGNED ORDER. IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE ADDITION OF RS.50,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES U/S.14A. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. NOW WE TAKE UP ITA NO.3575/AHD/2015 FOR ASST. Y EAR 2011-12. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE IS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE C.I.T.(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF RS.12,20,670/- U/S.36(1)(VA) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 B EING THE PAYMENT TO EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO P.F. AND ESIC THOUGH THE SAID PAYMENT WAS MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. 2. THE C.I.T.(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS.21,538/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXP. U/S.1 4A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION U/S. 14A OF RS.21,538/- TO THE BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB. THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND, ALT ER OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS STATED HEREINABOVE EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 11. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.1 IS CONCERNED FOR CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION OF RS.12,20,670 U/S.36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT BEING THE PAY MENT TO EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO P.F. AND ESIC. THAT GROUND IS AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE AS WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED IT IN DETAIL IN ITA NO.3576/ AHD/2015. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.3576 & 3575/AHD/2015 JAYATMA INFORMATICS PVT. LTD VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS -2012-13 & 2011-12 - 9 - 12. SO FAR AS GROUND NO. 2 IS CONCERNED. IN OUR CO NSIDERED OPINION AMOUNT OF RS.21,538/- APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE THER EFORE, WE DO NOT WANT TO INTERFERE IN THE SAME. HENCE, THIS GROUND I S DISMISSED. 13. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.3 IS CONCERNED. SAME WILL N OT BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB IN THE LIGHT OF SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE MATTER OF VIREET INVESTMENT PVT. LT D. 165 ITD 27 (DELHI TRIB.)(SPECIAL BENCH). 14. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IN ITA NO.3576/AHD/2015 I S PARTLY ALLOWED AND APPEAL IN ITA NO.3575/AHD/2015 IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 23 / 01 /201 8 SD/- SD/- ( ) 4 5 ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 23/01/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NOS.3576 & 3575/AHD/2015 JAYATMA INFORMATICS PVT. LTD VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS -2012-13 & 2011-12 - 10 - !'# $#! # COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !$' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 67- + 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. + 8- 4!5 / THE CIT(A)-2, AHMEDABAD. 5. 9:;-67 !.!672 ! / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<=, # GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, (9-- //TRUE COP '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 17/01/2018. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 22/01/2018. 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE F 6. AIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER