Archer and Angel, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6594/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4808 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GAGAN KUMAR SHRI AMIT KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Initiation of penalty proceedings

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 6594/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2010 - 11 PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A BENCH NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I N ITA NO. 6594 /DEL/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 0 - 11 ARCHER AND ANGEL, ARIA SIGNATURE OFFICES, HOTEL JW MARRIOT ASSET AREA 4, AEROCITY NEAR TERMINAL T3, IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI VS. AC IT CIRCLE - 37(1), NEW DELHI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) (PAN: A A GFA7581G ) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI GAGAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE SHRI AMIT KAUSHIK ADVOCATE REVENUE BY: SHRI A NUP SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 17 / 0 8 /201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 1 / 0 8 /201 7 ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE AFORESAID APPEAL HA S BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 1 7.9 .201 4 , PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - XXVIII , NEW DELHI IN RELATION TO THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)( C ) FOR THE A.Y. 20 10 - 11 . THE ASSESSEE IS MAINLY AGGRIEVED BY LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 6,83,110 / - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE PROPERTY OF RS. 21,10,707/ - IN RESPECT OF NEWLY PURCHASED PROPERTY. PAGE 2 OF 9 2. THE BRIEF FACTS QUA THE ISSUE RELATING TO LEVY OF PENALTY ARE THAT , THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION EXPENSES OF RS. 44,88,410 / - OUT OF WHICH RS. 13,25,000/ - AND RS. 24,72,000/ - RELATES TO THE DEPRECIATION ON NEWLY PURCHASE D PROPERTIES AT K - 4, SOUTH EXTENSION - II, NEW DELHI AND FLAT NO. 51, 52 AND 53, PARK WEST SOCIETY, PLOT NO. 5 - 6, UNION PARK, MUMBAI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH E COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES REGARDING PURCHASE OF TH ESE PROPERT IES . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON CLOSE SCRUTINY OF PURCHASE DEEDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NOTED THAT THE PRICE OF THE PROPERTIES ALSO IN CLUDED COST OF LAND AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTED THEREON. THUS, HE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON COST OF LAND ALSO. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE BOTH THE PROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED FOR RUNNING OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND WERE PURCHASED FOR A COMPOSITE PRICE, THEREFORE, THE LAND COULD NOT BE SEGREGATED FROM THE COST OF THE BUILDING AND THAT IS WHY BY MISTAKE DEPRECIATION ON THE COMPONENT OF LAND WAS ALSO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED , 20.2.2013 SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS SHEERLY DUE TO OVERSIGHT OF THE AUDITORS WHO HAVE NOT TAKEN SEGREGATED THE COST OF LAND FROM THE VALUE OF FLATS PURCHASED IN MUMBAI AND DELHI . HENCE, THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED THE COST OF THE LAND AT 50% OF MUMBAI FLATS AND 70% BEING THE COST OF LAND OF BEING DELHI PROPERTY AND THIS WAS STATED TO BE DUE TO A GENUINE MISTAKE AND NOT A DELIBERATE ACT FOR TAX AVOIDANCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER CALCULATED THE DEPRECIATION ON THE LAND AT RS. 20,10,707/ - WHICH HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . PAGE 3 OF 9 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL , AT THE OUTSET RAISED A LEGAL ISSUE THAT THE INITIATION AND LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C ) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND WHILE ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) HAS NOT PROPERLY FRAMED THE CHARGE , I.E. , WHETHER THE PENALTY IS BEING INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME . HE FIRST OF ALL DREW OUR ATTENTION TO ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.2.2013 AND POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HA S MENTIONED THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 HAS BEEN INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME . IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 DATED 26.2.2013, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT STROKED OFF THE INAPPLICABLE CLAUSE , I.E. , WHETHER THE INITIATION IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. FINALLY IN THE PENALTY ORDER , THE PENALTY HAS B EEN LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY ORDER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SPECIFIC ABOUT THE CHARGE O N WHICH PENALTY SHOULD BE INITIATED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATH COTTON GINNING FACTORY REPORTED IN ( 2013 ) 359 (KAR) 565 ; CIT VS. SSA S EMERALD MEADOWS IN ITA NO 380 OF 2015 DATED 23.11.2015 (KA R)(HC) ; AND SLP DISMISSED BY HON BLE APEX COURT IN CIT VS. SSA S EMERALD MEADOWS DATED 05.08.2016 . 4 . ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE SEEN IS T HE PENALTY ORDER WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PAGE 4 OF 9 CLEARLY LEVIED THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING OF THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME . THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE OVERALL SUBSTANCE OF THE FACTS NEEDS TO BE SEEN , WHICH HEREIN THIS CASE, CLEARLY POINTS OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREFORE , PENALTY HAS RIGHTLY BEEN INITIATED AND LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 5 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS QUA THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE INITIATION OF LEVY OF PENA LTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS BAD IN LAW IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY FRAMED THE CHARGE AT THE TIME OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND WHILE ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) . FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.2.2013 , W E FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TRIED TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER BOTH THE CHARGES , I.E. , FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME . IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE CHARGE UNDER WHICH HE PROPOSE S TO INITIATE THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) , THAT IS, HE DID NOT SPECIFY UNDER WHICH LIMB OF THE SAID SECTION HE INTENDS TO INITIATE THE PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT STRIKED OFF THE IN APPLICABLE CLAUSE IN THE SAID NOTICE . S ECTION 271(1)(C) ENVISAGES LEVY OF PENALTY ON TWO DISTINCT LIMBS , I.E. , WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON HAS CONCEAL ED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME . T HE CHARGE S FRAMED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE UNDER BOTH THE LIMBS OPERA TE IN TWO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS ; FOR EXAMPLE , CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME INCLUDE CASES LIKE FALSE DEDUCTION OR EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE RETURN OF PAGE 5 OF 9 INCOME. THE CONCEALMENT INVOLVES KNOWLEDGE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE REAL INCOME WHILE GIVING OR DISCLOSING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME , ON THE OTHER HAND INCLUDES ITEM S WHICH HA VE BEEN THOUGH SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BUT IS NOT CORRECT OR HAS BEEN WRONGLY SHOWN OR CLARIFIED . THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE MUST DISCLOSE TO THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE CHARGE ON WHICH HE PROPOSE S TO INITIATE OR LEVY THE PENALTY UNDER THIS SECTION . THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED SHOULD BE WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY AND HAS TO BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT THE CHARGE . THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATH COTTON GINNING FACTORY REPORTED IN 2013 359 (KAR) 565 HAVE DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD READS AS UNDER: - 59. AS THE PROVISION STANDS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED ON VARIOUS GROUND SET OUT THEREIN. IF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY CATEGORICALLY RECORDS A FINDING REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SAID GRO UNDS MENTIONED THEREIN AND THEN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS INITIATED, IN THE NOTICE TO BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274, THEY COULD CONVENIENTLY REFER TO THE SAID ORDER WHICH CONTAINS THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH HAS PASSED THE ORDER. HOWEVER, IF THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITIONS COULD NOT BE DISCERNED FROM THE SAID ORDER AND IF IT IS A CASE OF RELYING ON DEEMING PROVISION CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION - 1 OR IN EXPLANATION - 1(B), THEN THOUGH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE IN THE NATURE OF CIVIL LIABILITY, IN FACT, IT IS PENAL IN NATURE. IN EITHER EVENT, THE PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN ABOUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THEY INTEND IMPOSING PENALTY ON HIM AS THE SECTION 274 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST SUCH PROCEEDINGS AND SHOULD HAVE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) PAGE 6 OF 9 DO NOT EXIST AS SUCH HE I S NOT LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY. THE PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT SENDING A PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUND MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW WHEN THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ASSESSEE NOT REBUTTING THE INITIAL PRESUMPTION IS SERIOUS IN NATURE AND HE HAD TO PAY PENALTY FROM 100% TO 300% OF THE TAX LIABILITY. AS THE SAID PROVISIONS HAVE TO BE HELD TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED, NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 SHOULD SATISFY THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED IF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS VAGUE. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. 60. CLAUSE (C) DEALS WITH TWO SPEC IFIC OFFENCES, THAT IS TO SAY, CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. NO DOUBT, THE FACTS OF SOME CASES MAY ATTRACT BOTH THE OFFENCES AND IN SOME CASES THERE MAY BE OVERLAPPING OF THE TWO OFFENCES BUT IN SU CH CASES THE INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO MUST BE FOR BOTH THE OFFENCES. BUT DRAWING UP PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR ONE OFFENCE AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER OFFENCE OR FINDING HIM GUILTY FOR EITHER THE ONE OR THE OTHER CA NNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. IT IS NEEDLESS TO POINT OUT SATISFACTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WHEN IT IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INITIATION OR PROCEEDINGS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE CONFINED ONLY TO THOSE GROU NDS AND THE SAID GROUNDS HAVE TO BE SPECIFICALLY STATED SO THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THOSE GROUNDS. AFTER, HE PLACES HIS VERSION AND TRIES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM, IF AT ALL, PENALTY IS TO BE IMPOSED, IT SHOULD BE IMPOSED ONLY ON THE GROUNDS ON WHICH HE IS CALLED UPON TO ANSWER. IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE AUTHORITY, AT THE TIME OF IMPOSING PENALTY TO IMPOSE PENALTY ON THE GROUNDS OTHER THAN WHAT ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO MEET. OTHERWISE THOUGH THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS MAY BE VALID AND LEGAL, THE FINAL ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY WOULD OFFEND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THUS ONCE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON ONE GROUND, THE PENALTY SHOULD ALSO BE IMPOSED ON THE SAME GROUND. WHERE THE BASIS OF THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH THE GROUND ON PAGE 7 OF 9 WHICH THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED, THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT VALID. THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF PENALTY MU ST BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE INFORMATION, FACTS AND MATERIALS IN THE HANDS OF THE AUTHORITY IMPOSING THE PENALTY AT THE TIME THE ORDER WAS PASSED AND FURTHER DISCOVERY OF FACTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENA LTY CANNOT VALIDATE THE ORDER OF PENALTY WHICH, WHEN PASSED, WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 61. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE ACT TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ONCE HE IS SATISFIED IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER CLAUSE (C). CONCEALMENT, FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE DIFFERENT. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ISSUING NOTICE HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHETHER IS IT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR IS IT A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK PAI REPORTED IN INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME CARRY DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. THE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANU ENGINEERING REPORTED IN 122 ITR 306 AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIRGO MARKETING REPORTED IN 171 TAXM A N 156, HAS HELD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY HAS TO BE CLEAR AS TO THE LIMB FOR WHICH IT IS LEVIED AND THE POSITION BEING UNCLEAR PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO INVOKE THE FIRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN THE NOTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY MARKED. SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE STANDARD PROFORMA WITHOUT STRIKING OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES WILL LEAD TO AN INFERENCE AS TO NON - APPLICATION OF MIND. 6 . THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REPORTED BY THE SAME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. SSA S EMERALD MEADOWS IN ITA NO. 380/2015 ORDER DATED 23.3.2015 AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF SAFINA HOTELS (P) LTD. VS. CIT (2016) 137 DTR 0089, HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . PAGE 8 OF 9 7 . THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIRGO MARKETING PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 2008 171 TAXMAN. 156 HAVE REITERATED THE SAME PRINCIPLE WHEREIN HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MUST CLEARLY INDICATE AS TO UNDER WHICH PART OF SECTION 271(1)(C) , T HE ASSESSING OFFICER CHOOSES TO INITIATE THE PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 8 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) UNDER BOTH THE LIMBS AND HAS FAILED TO SPECIFY IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ( U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) ABOUT THE CHARGE FOR WHICH HE WISHES TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. FINALLY THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THIS SHOWS THAT HE HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND OR WAS SPECIFIC ABOUT HIS SATISFACTION UNDER WHICH LIMBS WHICH INTENDS TO INITIATE OR LEVY OF PENALTY. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE RATIO OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID CASES IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE HOLD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 6,83,110/ - IS NOT COVERED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 . 0 8 .201 7. S D / - S D / - ( L.P. SAHU ) (AMIT SHUKLA) ( ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) DATED: 21 . 0 8 .2017 PAGE 9 OF 9 NARENDER COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT (APPEALS) 5) DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON 1 8 .0 8 .2017 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 2 1 . 0 8 .2017 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 2 1 . 8 .2017 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 2 1 . 8 .2017 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 1 . 8 .2017 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.