Shri Jashwantlal Girdharlal Patel(HUF), Surat V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-3, Surat

ITA 3707/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: 370720514 RSA 2007
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Keywords: Capital asset; Income from undisclosed sources; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD , .'# '#,$% $ & BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.3707/AHD/2007 ( # ( # ( # ( # ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) JASHWANTLAL GIRDHARLAL PATEL (HUF) 35, KHADKI STREET ADAJAN GAM, SURAT # # # # / VS. THE DY.CIT CIRCLE-3 SURAT ) $% ./*+ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACHP 8216 K ( ), / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( -.),/ RESPONDENT ) ), / $/ APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARDIK VORA, A.R. -.), 0 / $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.L. YADAV, SR.D.R. #1 0 %/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 16/02/2012 2'( 0 % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/02/2012 $3/ O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE WH ICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II, SURAT DATED 11/7/2007 AND THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE REPRODUCED H EREINBELOW: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL S LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,00,000/- FOR CITY DEVELOPMENT CHARGES PAID TO SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. ITA NO. 3707/AHD/2007 JASHWANTLAL GIRDHARLAL PATEL (HUF) VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 2 - 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.12,421/- FOR DIFFERENCE IN DI SCLOSED AMOUNT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.2,32,350/- FOR ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED C ASH FOUND IN COURSE OF SURVEY. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN CHARGING NORMAL RATE OF TAX ON DISCLOSED AMOUNT INSTEAD OF S PECIAL RATE APPLICABLE TO CAPITAL GAIN. 2. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.1, FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGE D FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) O F THE ACT DATED 15/12/2006 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE-HUF HAS SHOWN AN INCOME UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND RS.1, 47,217/-. A SURVEY U/S.133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 16/10/2003. A SUM OF RS.4 LACS WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITA L GAIN, STATED TO BE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES PAID TO S.M.C. A COPY OF THE S AID RECEIPT WAS PRODUCED. THE AO HAS NOTICED THAT THE SAID SUM OF RS.4 LACS WAS PAID BY ONE SHRI JASWANTBHAI KHANDUBHAI, SURAT VIDE THREE C HEQUES OF RS.2 LACS, RS.1 LAC AND RS.1 LAC RESPECTIVELY DATED 11.8.96, 2 8.12.96 & 28.3.98. IT WAS EXPLAINED TO AO THAT THE SAID LAND WAS NOT IN T HE CITY LIMIT AND LATER ON THE CITY LIMIT WAS EXTENDED AND THEN THE DEVELOP MENT CONTRIBUTION WAS PAID TO THE CORPORATION. SINCE THE LAND WAS SOLD, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED AS EXPENSES. THE AO HAS NOTICED THAT T HE SAID AMOUNT WAS ITA NO. 3707/AHD/2007 JASHWANTLAL GIRDHARLAL PATEL (HUF) VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 3 - PAID AS A DONATION OR CHARITY BECAUSE IT WAS WORDED AS QUOTE INSPIRED US TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR MISSION, WE WOULD LIKE TO CO NTRIBUTE A SUM OF RS.4,00,000/- FOR DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT WORKS UNDER TAKEN BY S.M.C. UNQUOTE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE AO THAT TH E PAYMENTS WERE MADE PRIOR TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, TH EREFORE NOT TO BE ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. BEING AGGR IEVED THE ASSESSEE WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO AS PER THE FOLLOWING DECISION: DECISION 6. IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.4,00,000 WAS MADE PURELY AS AN AFTE RTHOUGHT. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE VOLUNTARILY TO THE SMC AS A PART O F THE SURAT FIRST MOVEMENT. IT WAS NOT PAID AS DEVELOPMENT CH ARGES. NO DEMAND WAS RAISED BY THE SMC. THE LAND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCUR RED WAS SOLD DURING THIS YEAR, WHEREAS THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN THREE INSTALMENTS DURING THE PERIOD 1996 TO 1998. QUITE OBVIOUSLY, THE PAYMENT DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE LAND IN QUESTION. M OREOVER, THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY SHRI JASHVANTBHAI IN HIS INDI VIDUAL CAPACITY, WHEREAS THE KARTA OF THE HUF, THE ASSESSE E IS SHRI JASHVANTLAL G.PATEL. THE NAME CLEARLY DOES NOT TAL Y. FINALLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION IN THE COMPUTATION O F INCOME AND NOT AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND IN QUEST ION. QUITE CLEARLY, THE PAYMENT OF THE SUM OF RS.4,00,000 HAD NO CONNEC TION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THE AO THEREFORE, WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITI ON OF THE SUM OF RS.4,00,000, WHICH IS CONFIRMED. ITA NO. 3707/AHD/2007 JASHWANTLAL GIRDHARLAL PATEL (HUF) VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 4 - 4. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIME D A DEDUCTION OF RS.4 LACS ALLEGED TO BE PAID TO S.M.C. HOWEVER, ON EXAM INATION OF THE IMPUGNED RECEIPT, IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT HOW IT WAS R ELATED TO THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 48 PRESCRIBES THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE C OMPUTED BY DEDUCTING FROM THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR AC CRUING AS A RESULT OF A TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET, NAMELY, I) EXPENDITU RE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER AND II ) THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET AND THE COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT THEREO F. NEITHER OF THE TWO CONDITIONS FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FROM THE FULL VAL UE OF CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN FULFILLED IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS.4 LACS. RATHER THE AO FOUND THAT THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE WAS NOTHING BUT TOWARDS CHARITY. WE ACCORDINGLY HEREBY AFFIRM THE FACTUAL AS ALSO LE GAL FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND AFFIRM THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 5. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.2, IT WAS NOTICED THAT A DECLARATION OF RS.75 LACS WAS MADE AS FOLLOWS:- 1. BHAKTI CORPORATION RS.30,00,000/- PROP.SHRI DIVYESH J.PATEL 2. YASH CORPORATION RS.30,01,840/- PROP.SHRI MUKESH J.PATEL 3. JASHVANTBHAI G.PATEL (HUF) RS.14,98,960/- ------------------ RS.75,00,000/- ------------------ ITA NO. 3707/AHD/2007 JASHWANTLAL GIRDHARLAL PATEL (HUF) VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 5 - 5.1. IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE AO THAT ON VERIFICATI ON OF AN IMPOUNDED DIARY IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOTED REC EIVABLES FROM LAND RS.14,86,739/-. HOWEVER, IN A REPLY TO A QUESTION NO.16 THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN OVERALL DISCLOSURE OF RS.14,98,960/-. SINCE THE DISCLOSURE AS PER THE STATEMENT WAS HIGHER, THEREFORE THE AO H AS OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME THE ON-MONEY WAS SH OWN ONLY AT RS.14,86,739/- AND NOT THE AMOUNT AS DISCLOSED; THE REFORE THE BALANCE OF RS.12,421/- WAS TAXED. 6. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO, BRIEFLY AS UNDER:- 9. THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE AR IS NOT ONL Y FAR-FETCHED BUT IS ALSO UNREALISTIC. ROUNDING OFF IS USUALLY D ONE WITH THE LAST TWO DIGITS AT THE MOST. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER COU LD NOT HAVE ROUNDED OFF THE TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF THE GROUP BY EN HANCING THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY THE SUM OF RS.12 ,421. IN ANY CASE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE AR. THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS.12,421 IS THEREFORE, CONF IRMED. 7. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE NOTINGS WHICH WERE FOUND IN THE IMPOU NDED DIARY ARE MORE RELEVANT THAN THE OVERALL DISCLOSURE WAS MADE. A BOUT THIS OVERALL DISCLOSURE OF RS.75 LACS, WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED WIT H FULL SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY BY LD.AR THAT A ROUND FIGURE WAS TO BE DIRECTED TO BE DISCLOSED, THEREFORE TO MATCH THE FIGURE THE SAID D IFFERENCE AMOUNT WAS ADDED IN THE FIGURE NOTED AS ON-MONEY IN THE SAID INCRIMINATING ITA NO. 3707/AHD/2007 JASHWANTLAL GIRDHARLAL PATEL (HUF) VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 6 - MATERIAL, I.E. IMPOUNDED DIARY. BE THAT AS IT WAS , THE FIGURE WHICH WAS NOTED IN THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL IS TO BE RELIED UPO N WHILE COMPUTING THE ASSESSMENT. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.12,421/- BEING NOT RELATED TO ANY INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL, HENCE HEREBY DIRECT TO DELETE THE SAME. THIS GROUND IS A LLOWED. 8. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.3, THE AO HAS NOTED THAT DU RING THE COURSE OF SURVEY A CASH OF RS.2,32,350/- WAS FOUND. A STA TEMENT OF MR.DIVYESH J.PATEL WAS RECORDED. IN HIS REPLY TO QUESTION NO .12, HE HAS STATED THAT THE CASH BELONGED TO HUF. IN THE CASH BOOK, IT WA S NOTED BY THE AO, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN A CASH BALANCE OF RS.6, 83,350/- AS ON 30/09/2003. THEREAFTER, AS ON 5/10/2003, A SUM OF RS.4,50,000/- WAS TRANSFERRED STATED TO BE TO TIJORI A/C.. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE CASH HAD ACCUMULATED UPTO RS.7,08,520/- AS ON 4/10/2003. ACCORDING TO AO, IT WAS LYING FOR MORE THAN SIX MON THS IN THE TIJORI A/C. AND MERELY TO ADJUST THE CASH FOUND AT THE TI ME OF SURVEY THE SAID AMOUNT WAS STATED TO BE TRANSFERRED. AO HAS REJECT ED THE SAID ENTRIES OF THE CASH BOOK ON THE PRETEXT OF FABRICATED CASH BOO K AND THE SAID ADDITION WAS MADE U/S.69A OF THE I.T. ACT. 9. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED AS PER THE FOLLO WING OBSERVATION: DECISION: 13. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE CASH SHOULD HAVE BEEN VERIFIED F ROM THE BOOKS AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY ITSELF. WHAT HE HAS IGNO RED IS THE FACT THAT ITA NO. 3707/AHD/2007 JASHWANTLAL GIRDHARLAL PATEL (HUF) VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 7 - NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND AT TH E PREMISES WHICH WAS SURVEYED, AND HENCE, THE CASH COULD NOT B E VERIFIED. IT HAS ALSO BEEN STATED THAT THE CASH WHICH WAS FOUND WAS INCLUDED IN THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE STATEMENT OF SHRI DIVEYESH J PATEL SON OF THE KARTA WHICH WAS RECORDED ON OATH AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY. NOWHER E WAS IT STATED BY HIM THAT THE CASH WAS INCLUDED IN THE DISCLOSURE . THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT, WHEN HE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE CASH H AD BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HE COULD NOT HAVE STATED IN THE SAME BREATH THAT THE CASH WAS INCLUDED IN THE DISCL OSURE OF THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME MADE IN COURSE OF THE SURVEY. T HE AO CLEARLY BROUGHT TO LIGHT HOW THE CASH BOOK, WHICH W AS PRODUCED IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HAD BEEN FABR ICATED TO TALLY AND EXPLAIN THE CASH OF RS.2,32,350 WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY. WHAT IS TO BE NOTED IS THAT, AS PER THE ST ATEMENT OF SHRI DIVYESH J PATEL THE SAID SUM REPRESENTED THE CASH R ECEIPT FROM THE PERSONS WHO HAD PURCHASED SHOPS AND FLATS AT JASHLA XMI COMPLEX. THIS MEANT THAT THE CASH REPRESENTED ON MONEY PAI D BY THE BUYERS OF SHOPS AND FLATS AND THEREFORE, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR EITHER BY THE PAYERS OR BY THE PAYEE I.E. THE ASSESSEE. THE AO THEREFORE, WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED I N TREATING THE CASH AS UNEXPLAINED. THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS .2,32,350, IS CONFIRMED. 10. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT A STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON 16/10/2003 DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION U/S.133A OF THE ACT OF SHRI DIVYESH J.PAT EL. IN COMPLIANCE TO QUESTION NO.12, HE HAS ANSWERED AS FOLLOWS:- Q.12. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS A CA SH OF RS.2,32,360/-, WHICH IS AS PER ANNEXURE-C, HAS BEEN FOUND FROM YOUR OFFICE TODAY. SO, PLEASE STATE WHO OWES THE S AID AMOUNT AND WHETHER IT IS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE CONCERNED PROPRIETOR? ITA NO. 3707/AHD/2007 JASHWANTLAL GIRDHARLAL PATEL (HUF) VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 8 - A.12. MY FATHER SHRI JASHWANTLAL GIRDHARLAL (HUF ), WHO CONSTRUCTED JASH LAXMI APARTMENT ON HIS LAND, HAS R ECEIVED THE ABOVE AMOUNT IN CASH FROM THE SHOPS AND FLATS HOLDE RS, AND HE HAS SHOWN THE SAME IN HIS CURRENT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 10.1. THE SAID CASH BOOK WAS VERY MUCH PRESENT BEFO RE THE AO. NO DEFECT HAS BEEN NOTED IN THE SAID CASH BOOK BY THE AO AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOW UNDER APPEAL. THE ONLY REASO N FOR NOT BELIEVING THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE CASH BOOK WAS THAT THOSE WE RE ALLEGEDLY FABRICATED AFTER THE SURVEY OPERATION. THAT ALLEGA TION OF THE AO APPEARS TO BE DEVOID OF MERITS AND NOT BASED UPON ANY EVIDE NCE. EVEN IF IT WAS WRITTEN AFTER THE SURVEY BUT NO DEFECT WAS FOUND IN THE ENTRIES RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK, THEN IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIABLE TO BRUSH ASIDE ALL THOSE ENTRIES MERELY ON PRESUMPTION THAT THOSE WERE WRITTEN AFTER WARDS. SUCH A PRESUMPTIVE APPROACH OF THE AO CANNOT BE UPHELD. A STATEMENT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS MADE AND AT THE VERY FIRST STANC E WHEN A QUESTION WAS RAISED, IT WAS INFORMED THAT THE SAID CASH WAS SHOW N IN THE CURRENT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE SAID CASH BOOK WAS PRODUCED TO THE AO LATER ON. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, ACCORDING TO US, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO MAKE THE ADDITION BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF IT ACT AN D THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. GROUND NO.3 IS ALLOWED. 11. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.4, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN C ONTESTED BEFORE US, HOWEVER, THIS GROUND IS PURELY A LEGAL GROUND A ND THAT THE RATE OF TAX ON THE CAPITAL GAIN HAS TO BE CHARGED AS PER THE RA TE APPLICABLE FOR THE ITA NO. 3707/AHD/2007 JASHWANTLAL GIRDHARLAL PATEL (HUF) VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 9 - YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO A PPLY THE CORRECT RATE OF TAX AS PER LAW. 12. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED. SD/- SD/- ( .'# '# ) ( ) $% ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 29 / 02 /2012 4..#, .#../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS $3 0 -5 6$5( $3 0 -5 6$5( $3 0 -5 6$5( $3 0 -5 6$5(/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ), / THE APPELLANT 2. -.), / THE RESPONDENT 3. 7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7() / THE CIT(A)-II, SURAT 5. 5:; -# , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ; <1 / GUARD FILE. $3# $3# $3# $3# / BY ORDER, .5 - //TRUE COPY// = == =/ // / * * * * ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION..27.2.12 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 27.2.12 OTHER MEMBER 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 D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S29.2.12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 29.2.12 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER