ADDL CIT RG 13(3), MUMBAI V. MILAN D. SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 5461/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2248 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R R VORA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAG HAVAN (JM) ITA NO. 5460/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 THE ACIT 13(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 VS. SHRI MILAN D. SHAH, 6,2 ND FLOOR, ANNA BHAVAN, DEVJI RATANSHI MARG, BROACH STREET, MUMBAI-400 009 PAN - AAEPS 0574R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 80/MUM/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5460/MUM/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 SHRI MILAN D. SHAH, 6,2 ND FLOOR, ANNA BHAVAN, DEVJI RATANSHI MARG, BROACH STREET, MUMBAI-400 009 PAN-AAEPS 0574R VS. THE ACIT 13(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 ( CROSS OBJECTOR ) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 5461/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 THE ACIT 13(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 VS. SHRI MILAN D. SHAH, L/H OF LATE DINESH B. SHAH 87-C, ANNA BHAVAN, DEVJI RATANSHI MARG, BROACH STREET, MUMBAI-400 009 PAN - AAEPS 0573J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) MILAN D SHAH 2 C.O. NO. 79/MUM/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5461/MUM/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 SHRI MILAN D. SHAH, L/OF LATE SHRI DINESH B. SHAH 87-C, ANNA BHAVAN, DEVJI RATANSHI MARG, BROACH STREET, MUMBAI-400 009 PAN-AAEPS 0573J VS. THE ACIT 13(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 ( CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI S.M. KESHKAMAT RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R.R. VORA O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07. AS BOTH THE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AN D INVOLVED CONNECTED ISSUES, THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE BEIN G DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NO. 5460/MUM/2009 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS FOLLOW S: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO T O TREAT SALE OF SHARE AND MUTUAL FUND AS STCG AND LTCG AND NOT THE INCOME FROM PROFIT AND GAIN OF BUSINESS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE NA TURE AND MAGNITUDE OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN SHARE AND ALSO THE MILAN D SHAH 3 FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN TO CONDUCT THIS ACTIVITY OF DEALING IN SHARES 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, APPELLANTS SUBMISSION DUR ING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE APPEAL ORDER OF MY PR EDECESSOR IN CASE OF APPELLANT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE NUMEROUS TRANSACTIONS IN LARGE QUANTITY OF SHARES. HOWEVER, EXCEPT MENTIONING THI S FACT, THE AO DID NOT MENTION ANY FACTS AND FIGURES, VALUE, NU MBER OF TRANSACTIONS, VOLUME OF TRANSACTION ETC IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. THE AO ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES WERE MADE WITH A SPECIFIC TARGET OF MAKING PROFIT. HOWEVER, THE MOTIVE OF MAKING PROFIT IS ALWAYS THERE IN TRAD ING ACTIVITY AND IN INVESTMENT ACTIVITY ALSO. THE AO FURTHER ME NTIONED THAT THE APPELLANT PURCHASED SHARES OF SEVERAL COMP ANIES FOR A VERY HIGH AMOUNT. HOWEVER, AGAIN IT WAS NOT SUBS TANTIATED BY MENTIONING THE FACTS, FIGURES AND NUMBER OF TRAN SACTIONS, VALUE ETC. THE AO ALSO MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT APPELLANT HELD SEVERAL SHARES FOR VERY SHORT S PAN OF TIME PERIOD. HOWEVER, AGAIN THE AO DID NOT MENTION AS T O WHICH NUMBER OF SHARES WERE HELD FOR WHAT NUMBER OF DAYS, WEEK AND MONTHS. THE DEFINITION IN SEC. 2(42A) OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL ASSET SAYS THAT THE CAPITAL ASSET SHOULD NOT BE HEL D FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS. THUS, THE MAXIMUM PERIOD HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED BUT NO MINIMUM PERIOD HAS BEEN PRESCRIBE D. HOWEVER, IF THE HOLDING PERIOD IS ONLY FEW DAYS THE N THE TRANSACTIONS COULD BE CONSIDERED OTHER THAN INVESTM ENT ACTIVITY. BUT THE AO HAS OMITTED TO MENTION SUCH H OLDING PERIODS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO ALSO HELD THAT THERE WAS FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTIONS, BUT WITHOUT MENTIONI NG ANY EXAMPLES. A PERSON MAY BE ENGAGED IN SALE ACTIVITY DURING EARLIER YEARS AND YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT THE FACTS AND FIGURES OF DIFFERENT YEARS CAN BE DIFFERENT. THE D IFFERENTIATION IN FACTS AND FIGURES PLAYS A DECISIVE ROLE IN DECID ING THE ISSUE. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AO HAS NOT SUB STANTIATED HIS FINDING BY MENTIONING THE FACTS AND FIGURES, NU MBER OF TRANSACTIONS, VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS IN VALUE ETC. ETC. IN ABSENCE OF SAME, THE UNDERSIGNED HAS NO OPTION BUT TO PRESUME THAT THE FACTS OF THE EARLIER YEARS. IN A. Y. 2004-05 AND 2005-06, THE AO HELD THE APPELLANTS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS APPELLANTS BUSI NESS INCOME. HOWEVER, MY PREDECESSOR CIT(A) REVERSED TH E FINDING OF AO AND HELD THE APPELLANTS SURPLUS ON SALE PURC HASE OF MILAN D SHAH 4 SHARES/UNITS AS SHORT TERM/LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. SINCE THE FACTS OF YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE OF EARLIER YEARS, BY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF MY PREDEC ESSOR, IT IS HELD THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT WAS ENGAGED IN INVESTMENT ACTIVITY AND NOT IN TRADI NG IN SHARES. FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF MY PREDECESSOR, IT IS ALSO HELD THAT THE SURPLUS EARNED ON SALE PURCHASE OF SHARES/ UNITS WAS ASSESSABLE AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN/LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE APPELLANTS CLAIM OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 4. WE FIND THAT THE MUMBAI ITAT IN ITA NO. 5006/M/ 08 VIDE ORDER DT. 3 RD NOV. 2009 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2005 -06 HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAV E ALSO CONSIDERED VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES. THER E IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE SHARES AND UNITS OF MUTUAL FUNDS WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS OWN FUNDS AND NOT FROM BOR ROWED FUNDS. THIS IS A FACT STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE BY REFERRING TO VARIOUS PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK AND N OT CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED D.R. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE TO THE F ACT THAT THE SHARES AND UNITS OF MUTUAL FUNDS WERE SHOWN AS INVESTMENTS IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO GIVEN SEPARATE TREATMENT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TREATING THE PROFIT AND SALE OF SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS AS SHORT TERM AND L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISION S THAT INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND UNITS OF MUTUAL FUNDS WITH THE INTENT ION TO EARN INCOME BY WAY OF DIVIDEND AND APPRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF SHARES AND NOT TO TRADE IN THEM CANNOT BE HELD AS BUSINES S INCOME. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASSOCI ATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD., 82 ITR 586(SC) HAS HELD THAT WHETHER A PARTICULAR HOLDINGS OF SHARES WERE BY WAY OF INVES TMENT OR FORMED PART OF STOCK-IN-TRADE WAS A MATTER WITHIN THE KNOW LEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT WOULD IN THE NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES BE IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE FROM ITS ACCOUNTS AS TO WHETHER IT IS MAINTAINED ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO. IN THE INSTANT CAS E, THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SEPARATEL Y MAINTAINED ITS PORTFOLIO AND ALSO PRODUCED SUCH BOOKS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. W E FIND THE MILAN D SHAH 5 TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BOMBAY GYMKHANA LTD. VS. IT O (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT PURCHASE OF MUTUAL FUND UNITS BY THE ASSE SSEE HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AS INVESTMENT, RECEIPT S FROM SALE THEREOF HAVE TO BE ASSESSED AS CAPITAL GAINS AND NO T AS BUSINESS INCOME ON THE GROUND OF MAGNITUDE AND FREQUENCY OF SALES. SIMILARLY, THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JANAK S.RANG WALLA VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT MERE VOLUME/MAGNITUDE OF TRAN SACTION DOES NOT ALTER NATURE OF TRANSACTION, WHICH ARE BEING AS SESSED AS INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN IN PAST SEVERAL YEARS. WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING LARGE MAGNITUDE OF SHARES AS INVESTMENT FRO M YEAR TO YEAR AND TRANSACTION OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES IN P RECEDING YEARS HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS BOTH ON LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM BASIS, THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR TREAT ING ASSESSEE AS A TRADER IN SHARES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION W HEN HIS INTENTION WAS TO HOLD SHARES IN INDIAN COMPANIES AS AN INVEST MENT AND NOT AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAMAAMIRTHAM, 217 CTR 206(MAD) AND AS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HAS HELD THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS RELEVANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS CAR RYING ON THE BUSINESS IN SHARES OR INVESTMENTS. WHEN THE ASSESSE E HAS BEEN HOLDING SHARES FOR A LONG TIME AND HAS BEEN UTILIZI NG THE SURPLUS FUNDS ONLY FOR THE INVESTMENTS AND MAINTAINING SEPA RATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF SHARES IN QUESTIO N WAS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. THE OTHER VARIOUS DEC ISIONS RELIED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUPPORT T HE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED DISCUSSION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TREATING THE TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES/UNITS AS INVESTMENT AND THE GAIN ARISING OUT OF THE SALE AS CAPITAL GAIN, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E BEFORE US ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE, THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE C O-ORDINATE BENCH, WE DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL. 5. C.O. NO. 80/MUM/2010 HAS NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSE SSEE THEREFORE IT IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. MILAN D SHAH 6 ITA NO. 5461/MUM/2009 6. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT IN ITA NO. 5460/M/2009. 7. WE FIND THAT THE MUMBAI ITAT IN ITA NO. 5003/M/ 08 VIDE ORDER DT. 8.12. 2009 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, HAS ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE PURCHASE AND S ALE TRANSACTIONS IN SHARE AND UNIT ARE TO BE TREATED BY THE AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE NATURE AND THE MAGNITUDE O F THE TRANSACTION IN SHARES AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN TO CONDUCT THIS ACTIVITY OF DEALING IN S HARES THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THE ABOVE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 WHEREIN TH E CO- ORDINATE BENCH HAS, INTERALIA, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MAT TER CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS WHETHER THE SHARE TRANSA CTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WERE TRADING TRANSACTI ONS OR INVESTMENT ACTIVITY. THE AO HAD TREATED THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS AS TRADING ACTIVITY AFTER NOTING THE M AGNITUDE OF TRANSACTIONS AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D ALSO TAKEN LOANS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAD IS THAT THE SHARE ACTIVITIES WERE SMALL COMPARED TO THE CON STRUCTION ACTIVITIES WHICH WERE ITS MAIN BUSINESS AND THAT SH ARES HAD BEEN PURCHASED OUT OF OWN FUNDS. THE INVESTMENTS H AD BEEN MOSTLY MADE IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD RE CEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME FROM THE INVESTMENT. WE NOTE THAT, THOUGH THE AO MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED FUN DS BUT THE AO MADE NO CASE THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS HAD BEE N UTILIZED IN MAKING INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL PRODUCED EITHER BEFORE THE CIT(A) OR BEFOR E US TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS BUYING SHARES FROM BORRO WED MILAN D SHAH 7 FUNDS. MOREOVER, AS HAS BEEN RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY T HE CIT, MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT BORROWED FUNDS HAD BEEN U TILIZED, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TRADIN G IN SHARES. SIMILARLY, THE MAGNITUDE OF TRANSACTIONS I S ALSO NOT CONCLUSIVE AS THE MAGNITUDE WOULD DEPEND UPON FUNDS DEPLOYED AND NOT ON NATURE OF ACTIVITY. WE AGREE W ITH CIT(A) THAT TO ARRIVE AT ANY CONCLUSION REGARDING NATURE O F ACTIVITIES, THE ENTIRE PATTERN OF THE ACTIVITIES HAS TO BE ANAL YSED. CIT(A) AFTER ANALYZING THE PATTERN OF TRANSACTIONS FROM AS SESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ONWARDS HAS NOTED THAT MOST OF THE TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO PURCHASE AND SALES OF UNITS OF MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS TRADING ACTI VITY. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T REGULARLY BUYING AND SELLING SHARES AND NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS IN A MONTH WAS NORMALLY ONE OR TWO AND IN CERTAIN MONTHS THERE WERE NO PURCHASES AT ALL. THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN SHOWING REGULAR DIVIDEND INCOME. IN FACT , THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HIMSELF HAS MENTIONED THAT DIVIDEND INCOME SHOWN FROM SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS WAS RS. 1 CRORE. THE ACTIVITY HAS BEEN SHOWN AS INVESTMENT IN THE BA LANCE SHEET AND IN EARLIER YEARS THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPT ED BY THE DEPARTMENT. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE CIT(A), WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY HIM THAT SHARE TRANSACTIONS WERE INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONF IRMED. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MA TTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE APPROVE THE CO NCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFE RE IN THE MATTER. 8. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEFORE US ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE, THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE C O-ORDINATE BENCH, WE DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL. 9. C.O. NO. 79/MUM/2010 HAS NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSE SSEE THEREFORE IT IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. MILAN D SHAH 8 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010 SD/- SD/- (R.S.SYAL) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 11 TH JUNE, 2010 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR F BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI MILAN D SHAH 9 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 7.6.2010 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 8. 6 .2010 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/ PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: _________ ______ 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______