The Managing Trustee, Trinity Charitable Trust, Pathanamthitta V. The ITO, Thiruvalla

ITA 83/COCH/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4018 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHA DHANARAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMUEL THOMAS
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Charitable institution
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12AA; 263; 154

Judgement Text

ITA NO .83/C/2016 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH (SMC) KOCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO 83/COCH/2016 (A SST YEAR 2010 - 11 ) TRININTY CHARITABLE TRUST PANIYALI OMALLOOOR PO PATHANAMTHITTA DIST KERALA 689 647 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AABTT5443R ASSESSEE BY SH SAMUEL THOMAS REVENUE BY SHA DHANARAJ, SR DR DATE OF HEARING 18 TH OCT 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19 TH OCT 2016 ORDER PER GEORGE GEORGE K,J M : THIS APPEAL, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 15.12.2015. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2010 - 11. 2 THE GROUNDS RAISED, READ AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (APPEALS) KOTTAYAM, UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - L , KOTTAYAM UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE; 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN HIS CONCLUSION, IN PARA - 9 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL STATED IN ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.243/COCH/2014 DATED 19/09/2014 (AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 263) THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IN COME TAX OFFICER UNDER SECTION 154 DATED 23/0112014 WAS VALID; ITA NO .83/C/2016 2 3. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DID NOT GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER U/S 154 WHICH WAS LATER ON SET - ASIDE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTA YAM VIDE ORDER U/S 263 DATED 01104/2014 HOLDING THE SAME TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE BECAUSE THE MATTER INVOLVED WAS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS;. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MISCONSTRUED THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL INASMUCH AS THE DISPUTE IN THAT APPEAL CONFINED ONLY TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OVER AN ISSUE ON WHICH RECTIFICATION WAS ALREADY CARRIED OUT AND WHETHER THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R COULD BE SAID TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE .. IT WAS AMPLY MADE CLEAR IN PARA - 4 OF THAT ORDER THAT THE FINDINGS THEREIN COULD NOT BE INFLUENCED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL BY THE CIT(APPEALS) ON MERITS. 5. THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN REJ ECTING THE MAIN PLANK OF CONTENTION OF ABSENCE OF ANY GLARING MISTAKE OF FACT OR LAW ON A DEBATABLE QUESTION, WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM, PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE SATISFACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER THAT THE IMPU GNED MISTAKE WAS NOT RECTIFIABLE UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH PROMPTED HIM TO RESORT TO ACTION UNDER SECTION 263 UNSUCCESSFULLY; 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF INCONSISTENCIES IN THE FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3), SHOW - CAUSE NOTICES AND ORDER U/S 154. THE RECTIFICATION WAS FIRST PROPOSED ON THE GROUND OF DENIAL OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA (NO SUCH REGISTRATION WAS SOUGHT) AND SUBSEQUENTLY SHIFTED THE GROUND TO NON ELIGIB ILITY OF BENEFITS OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) ADOPTING A WRONG FIGURE OF TOTAL RECEIPTS TO HOLD CROSSING OF THRESHOLD LIMIT IN TERMS OF RULE 2BC; WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS - 7. THE LEARNED CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HIS FINDINGS THAT THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT INASMUCH AS HE DID NOT HEED TO THE PLEA THAT THE AMOUNT QUOTED AS ANNUAL RECEIPTS IN THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 ARE BASED ONLY ON A SUMMARY OF CASH INFLOWS AND OUTFLOWS PREPARED AS 'CONSOLIDATED R ECEIPTS & PAYMENTS ACCOUNT' AND THE SUM OF RS.16,01 ,84,185/ - IS INCLUSIVE OF BANK LOANS AT RS.L ,57,23,558/ - AND LOAN FROM CHAIRMAN AT RS.2,81,00,000/ - . THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS WERE ONLY RS.39,39,669/ - AS PER THE AUDITED COPY OF 'INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCO UNT'. 8. BEING A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1969, IT IS NECESSARY TO PREPARE THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS REQUIRED UNDER THAT ACT. THE SO CALLED 'CONSOLIDATED RECEIPTS & PAYMENTS ACCOUNT' WAS PREPARED (ON SINGL E ENTRY SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING) FOR SUBMISSION BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT. THIS ACCOUNT HAS 1'.0 SANCTITY IN SCIENTIFIC ACCOUNTING SYSTEM AS IT IS ONLY A SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. T HE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS IGNORED ALL THE DETAILS INCLUDING COPIES OF THE AUDITED FINAL ACCOUNTS; ITA NO .83/C/2016 3 9. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICO RIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. V. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172(SC), THE FACTS OF WHICH ARE QUITE DISTINGUISHABLE INASMUCH AS IT WAS A CASE OF TEMPORARY PARKING OF SURPLUS FUNDS OF BUSINESS IN BANK FOR EARNING INTEREST. THE FDRS WERE PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT TRUST PURSUANT TO A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT BY AICTE FOR APPROVAL OF ENGINEERING COLLEGE, AND LOANS AGAINST SUCH FDRS WERE OBTAINED AT HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST.. 'ANY INCOME' O F EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 1 0(23C) IS EXEMPT. 10. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR TO AMEND THE AFORESAID GROU ND OF THE APPEAL. 3 BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF T HE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARITABLE TRUST WITH THE OBJECT TO ESTABLISH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 , THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DISCLOSING NIL INCOME. TH E ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE A CT WAS COMPL ETED VIDE ORDER DATED 19.11.2012 ACCEPTING THE RETURN ED INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF INTEREST INCOME ON FDRS AMOUNTING TO RS. 38,54,595/ - AS PER THE RECEIPT AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS NOT REGISTERED U/S 12A OF THE I T ACT, THE INTEREST INCOME FROM FDR S RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECTIFIED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 154 OF THE ACT AND BROUGHT TO TAX THE INTEREST RECE IVED ON FD DEPOSITS AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS FIXED AT RS. 38,54,595/ - . 4 LATER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BY INVOKING HIS REVISIONARY POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT, CANCELLED THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING THAT THE MISTAKE IS NOT APPARENT FROM THE ITA NO .83/C/2016 4 RECORDS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE RECTIFIED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE CIT SET ASIDE THE 154 ORDER AND AT THE SAME TIME DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER BRINGING TO TAX THE INTEREST INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5 THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE REVISION ORDER PASSED U/S 263 PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL CANCELLED THE REVISION ORDER STATING THAT RECOURSE TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE RESORTED TO IN THE INSTANT CASE WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE VIEWS . IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE TRIBUN AL THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 CANNOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED BY HOLDING THAT THE APPEAL PENDING BEFORE THE CIT(A) AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE I T A CT , MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS DE - HORSE THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL. 6 SUBSEQUENT TO THE TRIBUNAL ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE 2 36 ORDER, THE CIT(A) DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL AS AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT( A) READ AS FOLLOWS: 11. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE . SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CLEARLY STATES THAT ANY INCOME RECEIVED BY AN PERSO N ON BEHALF OF ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PUR POSE AND NO FOR P U RPOSES OF PROFIT IF THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF SUCH UNIVERSITY OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION DO NOT EXCEED THE AMOUN T OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED' IS EXEMPTED. AS PER RULE 2BC THE PRESCRIBED AMOUNT IS RS. 1 CRORE. FRO M, THE ABOVE, THE EXEMPTION U/S 1 0(23C) ITA NO .83/C/2016 5 (IIIAD) IS AVAILABLE ONLY IF THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTS AND THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS DO NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPT OF RS. 1 CRORES. I T IS EVIDENCED FROM THE RECORDS THAT DURING THE PREVI OUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010 - 11THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION D OES NOT EXIST AND ONLY THE IN FRASTRUCTURE WORKS WERE GOING ON. BESIDES, AS PER CONSOLIDATED RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEA R E NDED 31/03/2012, THE TOTAL RECEIPT IS RS. 16,01,84,185/ - . 12. SINCE THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPT EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT (I.E . RS. 1 CRORE] AS PER SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD) OF THE I.T ACT, APPROVAL FROM SUCH PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN OB TAINED . TH E ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO OBTAIN SUCH APPROVAL FROM THE AUTHORITY ; HENCE, THE EXEMPTION U/S 10(23 C) CANNOT BE GRANTED. ACCORDING LY, THE INTEREST ON FD AMOUNTING TO RS. 38,54,595/ - HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. THE DECISION OF THE HON. SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. VS. CI T (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I HEREBY UPHELD. 7 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED U/S154 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK COMPRISING OF 42 PAGES, INTER - ALIA ENCLOSING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A); COPY OF THE TRIBU NAL ORDER AND THE CASE LAWS ON THE ISSUE ETC. THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT 154 ORDER IS LEGALLY UNTENABLE SINCE THERE IS NO MISTAKE APART ON RECORD WITH REGARD TO THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3 ) OF THE ACT (ORDER DA T ED 19.11.2012) WAS PASSED AFTER MAKING THE DETAILED ENQUIRIES AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE ACCOUNT AND THE RELEVANT ISSUES/ACTIVITIES AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESS EE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN ED INCOME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER SATISFYING WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD, ITA NO .83/C/2016 6 WARRANTING PASSING OF AN ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE LD DR, ON THE OT HER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. 8 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE AO SHOWING TAXABLE INCOME AT NIL AS THERE WAS A LOSS OF RS. 57,37, 334/ - . THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT IS DULY AUDITED AND THE SAME IS PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE 7 TO 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HIS FINDING THAT THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPT EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT O F 1 CRORE U/S 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. THE CONSOLIDATED RECEIPT S AND PAYMENT S ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS INCLUSIVE OF THE BANK LOANS AND THE LOANS RECEIVED FROM THE CHAIRMAN. THE ANNUAL AGGREGATE RECEIPT S ARE ONLY RS. 39,39,669/ - AS PER AUDITED COPY OF INC OME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE TOTAL RECEIPTS EXCEED ED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT, IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE CIT(A), IN PARA 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAD HELD THAT ITAT WHILE QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT HAD HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 IS VALID. THIS OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A), ACCORDING TO ME, IS NOT CORRECT . THE ITAT HAD VERY CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE VALID ITY OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S154 IS TO BE EXAMINED ON MERITS BY THE CIT(A). THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO.243/COCH / 2014 (ORDER DATED 19.9.2014 ) , WHICH HAD SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263, READS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO .83/C/2016 7 4. BEING SO, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 154 OF THE I T ACT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. HENCE , WE CANNOT UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE I T ACT. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD AR THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 154 OF THE ACT IS PENDING BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION. HENCE, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT OUR FINDINGS HEREIN CANNOT BE INFLUENCED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE I T A CT AND HE IS REQUIRED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. WITH THIS OBSERVATION , WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8.1 THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT UPHE LD THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE , OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) IN PARA 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THE 154 ORDER IS VALID , IS WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION. 8 .2 MOREOVER THE APPEAL ARISES OU T OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. FOR EXERCISING POWERS U/S 154, THERE MUST BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOME THING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED , BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING OR EXAMINING ARGUMENTS ON POINTS WHERE THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPI NI ONS. A MISTAKE APPARENT F ROM THE RECORD MUST BE A GLARING, OBVIOUS OR SELF - EVIDENT MISTAKE . RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT VALID IN CASE O F DEBATABLE ISSUE. IN THE INSTANT CAS E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED AN ELABORATE RECTIFICATION ORDER TO DENY T H E EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 1 0( 23C)(IIIAD) OF THE A CT TO BRING TO TAX THE INTEREST INCOME ON FDRS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . THIS ISSUE , ACCORDING TO ME , IS A CLEAR DEBATABLE ISSUE AND THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED U/S 154 IS WITHOUT ANY VALID GROUND. THE REVENUE ITSELF WAS OF THE STRONG VIEW TH AT THE ORDER PASSED U /S 154 OF THE A CT WAS NOT ITA NO .83/C/2016 8 APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE AS THERE IS NO GLARING MISTAKE ON FACTS OR LAW A S HELD BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I N HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 9 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID REASONING, I HOLD THAT THE 154 ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND QUASHED THE SAME. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 10 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF OCT 2016 . SD/ - ( GEORGE GEORGE K) JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN: DATED 19 TH O CT 2016 RAJ* COPY TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT, 5 . DR 6 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR IT AT, COCHIN 1 DATE OF DICTATION 18 OCT 2016 2 DT ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19 TH OCT 2 016 3 DT ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR PS/PS 4 DT ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 5 DT OF PRONOUNCEMENT 6 DT ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 7 DT ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 8 DT ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO AR 9 DT OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER