Shri Atushbhai Babubhai Amin, Ahmedabad V. The Jt.CIT, Range-12, Ahmedabad

ITA 915/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8966 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D R THAKUR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Reasonable cause; Agreed addition
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM. ITA NO.915/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI ATUSHBHAI B. AMIN, 61, JAGABHAI PARK, RAMBAUG, MANINAGAR, AHMEDABAD. VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-12, AHMEDABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AAVPA 3460D AND ITA NO.975/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 ACIT, CIRCLE-12, AHMEDABAD. VS. SHRI ATUSHBHAI B. AMIN, 61, JAGABHAI PARK, RAMBAUG, MANINAGAR, AHMEDABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AAVPA 3460D APPELLANT BY SHRI D. R. THAKUR, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 10-3-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16/03/2017 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THESE CROSS APPEALS FOR ASST. YEAR 2010-11 ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-XX, ITA NO. 915 & 975/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 2 AHMEDABAD, DATED 27.1.2014 VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-XX /161/12-13 ARISING OUT OF ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FRAMED ON 11.02.2013 BY JT.CIT, RANGE-12, AHMEDABAD. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS CULLED OUT FROM THE R ECORDS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASST. YEAR 2010-11 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,00,51,636/- WAS E-FILED ON 06.10.201 0. CASE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT THROUGH COMPUTER ASSISTED SCRUTINY SELECTION (CASS) AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/ S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE CALLING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS. DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE FURNISHED. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSER VED THAT SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS.7,02,042/- BROUGHT FORWARD FROM PRE VIOUS YEARS COULD NOT BE PROVED GENUINE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SUPP ORT OF NECESSARY DETAILS AND SUBSEQUENT THERETO LD. AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE CUMULATIVE SUM OF SUCH CREDIT BALANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.7,02,042/- AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE UN DER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.41(1) OF THE ACT. 3. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSE E HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT AT RS.1 CRORES BY WAY OF INVESTMENT IN THE SPECIFIED ASSETS AT RS.50 LACS EACH SPREAD UP O VER TWO FINANCIAL YEARS BUT THIS INVESTMENT WAS MADE WITHIN SIX MONTH S FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF ASSET. ACCORDINGLY INCOME WAS ASSESSED A T RS.2,56,61,637/- AFTER DISALLOWING CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON U/S 54EC OF THE ACT AT RS.50 LACS AND MAKING ADDITION U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT AT RS.7,02,042/-. ITA NO. 915 & 975/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 3 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) AGAINST BOTH THE ADDITIONS AND PARTLY SUCCEEDED. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIO N U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD ADMITTED TO OFF ER THE SAID SUM AS INCOME AND ALLOWED ASSESSEES GROUND OF APPEAL AGAI NST THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54EC BY FOLLOWING THE JUDICICIAL PREC EDENCE. 5. NOW BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN APP EAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. FIRST WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.915 /AHD/2014. SOLE GRIEVANCE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)S CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.7,02,042/ - MADE U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. WE OBSERVE THAT LD. AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FACT BROUGHT BEFORE US BY LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDIT ION MADE U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT OF RS.7,02,042/- WAS ALLEGEDLY OFF ERED AS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. WE OBSERVE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS OF SUNDRY CRE DITORS LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ENQUIRED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS OF FEW PARTIES TOTALING TO RS.7,02,042/-. ASSESSEE COULD NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE INCLUDING CURRENT ADDRE SS OF THE ALLEGED ITA NO. 915 & 975/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 4 SUNDRY CREDITORS AND LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OFFERED THE CUMULATIVE SU M OF SUCH CREDIT BALANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.7,02,042/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.7,02,042/- MADE U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED AS LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS FOLLO WS :- 43. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUB MISSION MADE BY THE :RPELLANT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.7,02,0 42/- MADE U/S.41(L) OF I.T. ACT WITH REGARD TO THE CREDITORS NAMELY M/S.AM IT ELECTRICALS AT RS.31,910/-, AMIT ELECTRICAL COMPANY AT RS.5,86,144 /-, M/S.KIRAN ELECTRICALS RS.38,988/-AND M/S.PRANAV CONSTRUCTION CO. RS.45,000/-. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE LIABILITY OF C REDITORS SHOWN IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NEITHER HE COULD FURNISH ANY SUBSEQUENT PAYMENT EVIDENCES MADE TO THEM IF AT ALL. THE APPELLANT DID NOT PROVI DE THE CURRENT ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, AS OBSERVED IN PARA-3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE APPELLANT OFFERED THE AFO RESAID CREDIT BALANCES AMOUNTING TO RS.7,02,0427- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4.4. HOWEVER, DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE SUBMISSION ON MERITS WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN T HE PRECEDING PARAS. IT IS TO BE NOTICED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT VOLUNTARILY OFFERED THE CEASED LIABILITIES AS INCOM E OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON AGREED BASIS AND NOW IN THE APPEAL HE HAD CHALLENGING THE ADDITION WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IN THIS REGARD THE HON' BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHESH B. SHAH VS. CIT 238 ITR 130 HAS HELD THAT NO APPEAL LIES AGAINST AGREED ADDITIONS UNLESS ASSESSEE'S PRO VES COERCION AND MALAFIDE. SAME VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN ENDORSED BY HON'B LE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMESHCHANDRA & CO. VS. CIT 168 ITR 375. SO, IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT EXCEPT THE SUBM ISSION ON MERITS HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DETAILS CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE A.O STATING THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY WAY OF COERCION OR MALAFIDE AT THE LEVE L OF A.O. SINCE THE ITA NO. 915 & 975/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 5 APPELLANT HAS VOLUNTARILY OFFERED THE CEASED LIABIL ITY AS INCOME DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HENCE AS PER THE CASE LAWS CITED ABOVE, NO APPEAL LIES AGAINST THE SAME, THEREFORE, GROUND OF THE APP ELLANT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 4.5 EVEN OTHERS WISE ALSO THE LIABILITY PENDING OVER A PERIOD OF TIME WHICH WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY WAY OF FURNISHING THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND BY NOT PROVIDING THE CURRENT A DDRESSES OF THE PARTIES THE GENUINENESS OF THE LIABILITY ITSELF WAS IN DOUB T. HENCE, CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. CHIP SOFT TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. (2012) 26 TAXMANN.COM 109 DTD. 20.07.2012 THE ADDITION OF THE CEASED LIABILITY NEEDS TO BE MADE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ACTION OF THE A.O. NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED. FURTHER RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT VS. SHRI SHAILESH D. SHAH IN ITA NO.7012/M/10 DTD. 11.12.2013 AND YUSUF R. TANWAR VS. ITO IN ITA NO.8408/MUM/2010 ON 28.2.2013. 8. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGMENTS RELIED ON BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) AND GLARING FACT THAT ASSESSEE MISERABLY FAILED TO FURNISH ANY PROPER DETAIL AND D ETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS NOR COULD FURNISH ANY DETAIL IF ANY PAYME NT WAS MADE TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND MOST IMPOR TANTLY THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF OFFERED TO LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING ADDITION OF RS.7,02,042/-. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. NOW WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.975/AH D/2014 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL:- ITA NO. 915 & 975/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 6 1. THE LD. CIT (A)-XX, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED ON FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE : CASE IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS.1 CRORE U/S.54EC O F THE ACT WHEN THE LIMIT IS RESTRICTED TO RS.50 LACS BY INSERTING PROVISO TO CL AUSE (I) OF SECTION 54EC W.E.F. 01.04.2007. 2. THE LD.CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED ON FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF FURTHER RS.50 LAC S U/S.54EC OF THE ACT WHEN THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE ONLY IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 3. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTE NT. 10. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT A SSESSEE SOLD A PLOT OF LAND SITUATED AT BOPAL AND RECEIVED RS.4,00,50,0 00/- OUT OF WHICH HE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT FOR PURCHAS ING A RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOW AT RS.77 LACS AND FURTHER INVESTMENT OF RS .50 LACS TWICE IN THE BONDS ISSUED BY NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OF INDIA LTD. FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION 54EC OF THE ACT. LD. ASSESSING O FFICER FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, JAIPUR IN TH E CASE OF ACIT, CIRCLE-2, AJMER VS. SHRI RAJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (201 2) 50 SOT 213 (JP) AND LIMITED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54EC TO RS.50 LACS AS AGAINST RS.1 CRORES. 11. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY ARGU ED SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E HEAVILY RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A ) AND ALSO REFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF HON. MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. C. JAICHANDER PRONOU NCED ON 15.9.2014 CONFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINA TE BENCH, ITA NO. 915 & 975/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 7 CHENNAI IN THE CASE SHRI C. JAICHANDER VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.456/MDS/2013 FOR ASST. YEAR 2009-10 DATED 01.11. 2013. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF LD. REPRESENTA TIVES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. SOLITARY GRIE VANCE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)S ORDER ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS.1 CRORES U/ S 54EC OF THE ACT IN PLACE OF RS.50 LACS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT AGAINST THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.4,00,50,000/- RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM SALE OF PLOT OF LAND AT BOPAL ASSESSE E CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT BY WAY OF INVESTMENT O F RS.77 LACS IN PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND FURTHER CLAIMED D EDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT FOR PURCHASING BONDS ISSUED BY NATI ONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OF INDIA LTD. BUT SPREADED THE INVESTME NTS INTO TWO PARTS AT RS.50 LACS PAID ON 31.01.2010 & 31.5.2010 FALLI NG IN TWO FINANCIAL YEARS I.E. 2009-10 AND 2010-11 BUT DID NOT CROSSED THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT OF MAKING INVESTMENT WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM T HE DATE OF TRANSFER OF SUCH CAPITAL ASSET. 13.1 WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX(A) ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF RS.1 CRORES U/S 54EC OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS :- 3.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT .THE AO HAS RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION CLAI MED U/S.54EC OF I.T. ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50 LAKHS AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT' S CLAIM OF RS.L CRORE. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O. THAT THERE COULD NOT BE THE DI FFERENT TREATMENT FOR THE ASSESSES WHO SOLD THE PROPERTY FROM 1 ST APRIL TO 30 TH SEPTEMBER WITH THE ASSESSEE WHO SOLD DURING 1 ST OCTOBER TO 31 ST MARCH. HE MENTIONED THAT AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(1) THE INVESTMENT IN TH E LONG TERM SPECIFIED ASSET IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED RS.50 LAKHS. ITA NO. 915 & 975/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 8 3.4. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD A P LOT OF LAND ON 14.12.2009 AND ON THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISED THEREUPON THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S.54EC OF RS.L CRORE FOR THE SPECIFIED INVESTMENT MADE IN BONDS OF NHAI ON 31.1.2010 AT RS.50 LAKHS AND ANOTHER INVESTMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS ON 31.05.2010. THE AO HAS GRANTED THE DEDUCTION ON THE INVESTMENT IN BONDS U/S.54EC MADE ON 31.1.2010 BUT DID NOT GRANT THE DEDUCTION FOR TH E INVESTMENT MADE ON 31.5.2010 FOR THE REASON THAT THE SUBSEQUENT INVEST MENT WAS BEYOND THE COMPLETION OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N IN WHICH TRANSFER OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TAKEN PLACE. IN SUPPORT, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT, CIR.2, AJMER VS. SHRI RAJKUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF)(2012) 50 SOT 21. 3.5. ON THE OTHER SIDE THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED TH AT THE INVESTMENT LIMIT OF RS.50 LAKHS IS APPLICABLE TO A FINANCIAL YEAR ONLY AND HE CAN MAKE ANOTHER INVESTMENT OF RS,50 LAKHS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AL SO BUT WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY. HE HAS MENTIO NED THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC (W.E.F. 1.4.2007) THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS CAN BE MADE IN 'ANY FINANCIAL YEAR'. SO THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE FIRST INVESTMENT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SUBS EQUENT INVESTMENT IN ANOTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND AS SUCH THE PROVISO DOE S NOT DEBAR THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR ALTHOUGH MADE WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT OF 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER. IN SUPPORT O F THE SAME HE HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS. 3.6. IN THE CASE OF ASPI GINWALA, SHREE RAM ENGINEE RING & MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT, CIRCLE, BARODA IN IT APPEAL NO .3226 OF 2011 VIDE ORDER DTD. 30.03.2012 THE HON'BLE ITAT BENCH-C, AHM EDABAD HAS GRANTED THE DEDUCTION OF RS.L CRORE IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANC IAL YEARS MADE BUT WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE TRANSFER. RELEVANT PORTION OF T HE FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER:- 'THE DISPUTE WHICH IS TO BE DECIDED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION OF RS.L CRORE AS SIX MONTHS PERIOD FOR INVESTMENT IN ELIGIB LE INVESTMENT INVOLVES TWO FINANCIAL YEARS. IF THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS 'YES', WHETHER INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN NHAI BONDS ON 26 -5-2008 BEYOND SIX MONTHS PERIOD IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO SUBSCRIPTION FOR ELIGIBLE INVESTMENT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FROM 1.4.2008 TO 26.5.2008. ITA NO. 915 & 975/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 9 IT IS CLEAR FROM PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC THAT WHERE ASSESSEE TRANSFERS HIS CAPITAL ASSET AFTER 30 TH SEPTEMBER OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR HE GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN INVESTMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS EA CH IN T\VO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS AND IS ABLE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UP T O RS. 1 CRORE UNDER SECTION 54EC. SINCE THE WORDING OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC IS CLEAR, THE BENEFITS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIE D. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, ASSESSEE IN INSTANT CASE, WAS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTIO N OF RS.L CRORE AS SIX MONTHS' PERIOD FOR INVESTMENT IN ELIGIBLE INVESTMEN TS INVOLVED WAS TWO FINANCIAL YEARS. NOW, COMING TO THE SECOND ASPECT OF THE MATTER, WHE THER INVESTMENT OF RS. 50 LAKHS MADE IN NHAI BOND ON 26.5.2008 CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE MADE WITHIN SIX MONTHS PERIOD AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN S UCH BONDS BETWEEN 1.4.2008 TO 21.4.2008. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT SUBSCRIPTION OF ELIGIBLE BONDS WAS CLOSED DURING TH IS PERIOD TILL 26.5.2008 AND ON THE 1 ST DAY OF THE REOPENING OF THE SUBSCRIPTION, THE ASSESSEE MADE THIS INVESTMENT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTAN CES, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHICH WAS BEYOND HIS CONTROL IN MAKING INVESTMENT IN THESE BONDS WITHIN THE TIME PR ESCRIBED. FURTHER VARIOUS JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN A VIEW THAT EXEMPTION SHOULD BE GRANTED IN SUCH CASE WHERE THERE IS A DELAY IN MAKI NG INVESTMENT DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF THE BONDS AND HAVE HELD THAT IT IS A REASONABLE CAUSE AND THE EXEMPTION SHOULD BE GRANTED. THUS, IT IS HELD THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE AS SESSEE ON 26.5.2008 BEYOND SIX MONTHS WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION IN VIE W OF THE FACT THAT NO SUBSCRIPTION FOR ELIGIBLE INVESTMENT WAS AVAILABLE ON THE ASSESSEE FROM 1.4.2008 TO 26.5.2008.' FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF SMT.SHRIRAM INDUBAL VS. ITO , BUSINESS WARD-VI(3), CHENNAI [2013] 32 TAXMANN.COM 118 (CHENNIAI - TRIB. ) 'SECTION 54EC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS - NOT TO BE CHARGED ON INVESTMENT IN CERTAIN BONDS - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 - WHETHER WHERE ASSESSEE INVESTED RS.L CRORE IN CAPIT AL BONDS IN TWO EQUAL INSTALLMENTS IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS WITHI N SIX MONTHS PERIOD FROM DATE OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET T ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UPTO RS.L CRORE - HELD, YES.' ITA NO. 915 & 975/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 10 FURTHER IN THE CASE OF ITO, WD-2, MARGAS, GOAD, VS. MS. RANIA FALEIRO [2013] 33 TAXMANN.COM 611 (PANAJI - TRIB.) SECTION 54EC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 - CAPITAL G AINS - NOT TO BE CHARGED ON INVESTMENT IN CERTAIN BONDS [QUANTUM OF EXEMPTIO N] ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 - WHETHER CONDITION FOR AVAILING OF EXEMPTI ON UNDER SECTION 54EC REQUIRES THAT INVESTMENT CAN BE MADE WITHIN A PERIO D OF 6 MONTHS AND IF 6 MONTHS FALL WITHIN TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS, A SSESSEE CAN MAKE INVESTMENT IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS PROVIDE D IN A FINANCIAL YEAR INVESTMENT MADE DID NOT EXCEED RS. 50 LAKHS - HELD, YES - ASSESSEE SOLD A PROPERTY ON 5.2.2008 AND COMPUTED CAPITAL GAIN AT R S.1.16 CRORES - SHE HAD INVESTED IN CAPITAL GAINS BONDS A SUM OF RS.50 LAKH S ON 31.3.2008 AND A SUM OF RS.50 LAKHS ON 30.6.2008 - IN RETURN OF INCO ME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, SHE CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC O F CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS. ONE CRORE - WHETHER ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 50EC FOR RS. ONE CRORE - HELD, YES.' FURTHER IN THE CASE OF COROMANDEL INDUSTRIES (P) LT D. VS. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE 1(3), CH ENNAI [2013] 36 TAXMANN.COM 6 (CHENNAI - TRIB.) 'SECTION 54EC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS - NOT TO BE CHARGED ON INVESTMENT IN CERTAIN BONDS [LIMIT OF IN VESTMENT] - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 - ASSESSE SOLD CAPITAL ASSE TS AND EARNED LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN OFRS.1.10 CRORES ~ ASSESSEE INVESTED RS.50 LAKHS EACH IN TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN REC BONDS WITH SIX MONTHS - CASE IF REVENUE WAS THAT ASSESSEEWAS ELIGI BLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION ONLY FOR RS.50 LAKHS AND REMAINING CLAIM OF RS.50 LAKHS WAS DENIED - TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SMT. SRIRAM INDUBA L V. IT [2013] 32 TAXMANN.COM 118 (CHENNAI) HELD THAT IF ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED RS.50 LAKHS EACHIN SPECIFIED ASSETS IN TWO DIFFERENT FINA NCIAL YEAR BUT WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM DATE OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET, RESTRICTIVE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC WOULD NOT LIMIT EXEMPTION CLAIM TO RS .50 LAKHS ONLY WHETHER FOLLOWING SAME, EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY ASSESS EE UPTO RS.L CRORE WAS ALLOWED - HELD, YES.' IT IS SEEN FROM THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE ITAT R EFERRED ABOVE EXCEPT JAIPUR BENCH, THE INVESTMENT MADE U/S.54EC TO THE E XTENT OF RS.L CRORE IN TWO FINANCIAL YEARS BUT WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DA TE OF TRANSFER HAS BEEN ITA NO. 915 & 975/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 11 GRANTED. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT SUPPORT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. SINCE THE JURISDICTIONAL HON'BLE ITAT BENCH-C, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF ASPI JINWALA HAS GRANTED SUCH DEDUCTIONS AND THE SAME IS BINDING UPON THIS OFFICE. HENCE, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS ACCEPTED AND DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. TOWARDS DEDUCTION U/S.54EC OF THE ACT IS DELETED. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 14. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT HON. MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. C. JAICHANDER (SUPRA) HAS DEALT WITH VERY SIMILAR ISSUE AND HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS :- 4. WE HAVE HEARD MR.J.NARAYANASAMY, LEARNED SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE; MRS.PUSHYA SITARAMAN, LEARNED SENIOR C OUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT IN T.C.(A) NO.419 OF 2014 AND MR.R.VIJAY ARAGHAVAN, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT IN T.C. (A)NO.533OF201 4 5. THE KEY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS W HETHER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(I) OF THE ACT WOULD RESTRICT THE BENEFIT OF IN VESTMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS IN BONDS TO THAT FINANCIAL YEAR DURING WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS S OLD OR IT APPLIES TO ANY FINANCIAL YEAR DURING THE SIX MONTHS PERIOD. 6. FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE, IT WOULD BE APPOSITE TO REFER TO SECTION 54EC(I) OF THE . ACT, WHICH READS AS UNDER: SECTION 54EC. CAPITAL GAIN NOT TO BE CHARGED ON IN VESTMENT IN CERTAIN BONDS (I) WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG -TERM CAPITAL ASSET (THE CAPITAL ASSET SO TRANSFERRED BEING HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRE D TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, AT ANY TIME WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MO NTHS AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER, INVESTED THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SAY, (A) IF THE COST OF THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET IS NOT LESS THAN THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, THE WHOLE OF SUCH CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45; (B) IF THE COST OF THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET IS LESS THAN THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, SO MUCH OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AS BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL G AIN, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45. PROVIDED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE ON OR AFTER THE I ST DAY OF APRIL, 2007 IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BY AN ASSESSEE DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. ITA NO. 915 & 975/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 12 7. ON A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE SAID PROVISION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SECTION 54EC(I) OF THE ACT RESTRICTS THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE PERIOD OF INVESTMENT AFTER THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD TO SIX MONTHS. THERE IS NO CAP ON THE INVESTME NT TO BE MADE IN BONDS. THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(I) OF THE ACT SPECIFIES THE QUANTUM OF INVESTMENT AND IT STATES THAT THE INVESTMENT SO MADE ON OR AFTER 1.4.2007 IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BY AN ASSESSEE DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. IN OTHER WORDS, AS PER THE MANDATE OF SECTION 54EC(I) OF THE ACT, THE TIME LIMIT FOR INVESTMENT IS SIX MONTHS AND THE BENEFIT THAT FLOWS FROM THE FIRST PROVISO I S THAT IF THE ASSESSEE MAKES THE INVESTMENT OF RS.5O,OO,OOO/- IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR, IT WOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54EC(I) OF THE ACT , -: 8. THE LEGISLATURE NOTICING THE AMBIGUITY IN THE AB OVE SAID PROVISION, BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014, WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2015, INSERTED AFTE R THE EXISTING PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (I) OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT, A SECOND PROVISO, WHICH READS AS UNDER: # PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY AN A SSESSEE IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, FROM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF ONE OR MORE ORIGINAL ASSETS, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASSET OR ASSET S ARE TRANSFERRED AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEESJ 9. AT THIS JUNCTURE, FOR BETTER CLARITY, IT WOULD B E APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO THE NOTES ON CLAUSES 7-FINANCE BILL 2014 AND THE MEMORANDUM EXPL AINING THE PROVISIONS IN THE FINANCE (NO.2) BILL, 2014, WHICH READ AS UNDER: #NOTES ON CLAUSES T FINANCE BILL 2014: CLAUSE 23 OF THE BILL SEEKS TO AMEND SECTION 54EC O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT RELATING TO CAPITAL GAIN NOT TO BE CHARGED ON INVESTMENT IN CER TAIN BONDS. THE EXISTING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUBSECTION (I) OF SECTION 54EC PROVIDE THAT WHERE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET AND THE A SSESSEE HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS INVESTED THE WHOLE OR PART OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, THE PROPORTIONATE CAPITAL GAINS SO INVESTED IN THE LONG -TERM SPECIFIED ASSET OUT OF TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED TO TAX. THE PROVI SO TO THE SAID SUB-SECTION PROVIDES THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSE T DURING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR SHALL NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. IT IS PROPOSED TO INSERT A PROVISO BELOW FIRST PROV ISO IN SAID SUB-SECTION (I) SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY AN ASSESSEE IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, FROM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF ONE OR MORE ORIGINAL ASSETS, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASSET OR ASSETS ARE TRAN SFERRED AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 201 5 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS-MEMORANDUM: EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN THE FINANCE (NO.2) BILL, 2014: ITA NO. 915 & 975/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 13 CAPITAL GAINS EXEMPTION ON INVESTMENT IN SPECIFIED BONDS. THE EXISTING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (I ) OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT PROVIDE THAT WHERE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, AT ANY TIME WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MO NTHS, INVESTED THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET, OUT OF THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED TO TAX. THE PROVISO TO THE SAID SUB- SECTION PROVIDES THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET DURING ANY FI NANCIAL YEAR SHALL NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. HOWEVER, THE WORDINGS OF THE PROVISO HAVE CREATED A N AMBIGUITY. AS A RESULT THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING DURING THE YEAR AFTER THE MONTH OF SE PTEMBER WERE INVESTED IN THE SPECIFIED ASSET IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO SPLIT THE INVESTMEN T IN TWO YEARS I.E., ONE WITHIN THE YEAR AND SECOND IN THE NEXT YEAR BUT BEFORE THE EXPIRY O F SIX MONTHS. THIS RESULTED IN THE CLAIM FOR RELIEF OF ONE CRORE RUPEES AS AGAINST THE INTEN DED LIMIT FOR RELIEF OF FIFTY LAKHS RUPEES. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS PROPOSED TO INSERT A PROVISO IN SUB-SECTION (I) SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY AN ASSESSEE IN THE LONG-TERM SPE CIFIED ASSET, OUT OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF ONE OR MORE ORIGINAL ASSET , DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASSET OR ASSETS ARE TRANSFERRED AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 201 5 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS.# 10. THE LEGISLATURE HAS CHOSEN TO REMOVE THE AMBIGU ITY IN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(I) OF THE ACT BY INSERTING A SECOND PROVISO WITH EFFEC T FROM 1.4.2015. THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN THE FINANCE (NO.2) BIL L, 2014 ALSO STATES THAT THE SAME WILL BE APPLICABLE FROM I.4.2015 IN RELATION TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2015-16 AND THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE PROBABLY AP PEARS TO BE THAT THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016 TO AVOID UNWAN TED LITIGATIONS OF THE PREVIOUS YEARS. EVEN OTHERWISE, WE DO NOT WISH TO READ ANYTHING MOR E INTO THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC(I) OF THE ACT, AS IT STOOD IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSEES. 11. IN ANY EVENT, FROM A READING OF SECTION 54EC(I) AND THE FIRST PROVISO, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR INVESTMENT IS SIX MONTHS FROM TH E DATE OF TRANSFER AND EVEN IF SUCH INVESTMENT FALLS UNDER TWO FINANCIAL YEARS, THE BEN EFIT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED. IT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE, IF THE RES TRICTION ON THE INVESTMENT IN BONDS TO RS.50.00,000/- IS INCORPORATED IN SECTION 54EC(I) O F THE ACT ITSELF. HOWEVER, THE AMBIGUITY HAS BEEN REMOVED BY THE LEGISLATURE WITH EFFECT FROM 1,4.2015 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AND THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WARRANTING INTERFERENCE BY THIS COURT. THE SUBSTANT IAL QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE ANSWERED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND THESE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED . NO COSTS. ITA NO. 915 & 975/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 14 15. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON. MAD RAS HIGH COURT AND OTHER JUDGMENTS AND DECISIONS DISCUSSED IN THE FINDING OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) AND THE VERY FACT THA T THE LEGISLATURE HAS INTRODUCED THE PROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT W.E.F. 1.4 .2015 IN THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (I) OF SECTION 5 4EC OF THE ACT AS DISCUSSED BY HON. MADRAS HIGH COURT REFERRED ABOVE, WE CONFIRM THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/ S 54EC OF THE ACT OF RS.1 CRORES. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO IN TERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) AND ACC ORDINGLY DISMISS THE APPEAL OF REVENUE. 16. OTHER GROUNDS ARE OF GENERAL NATURE WHICH NEED NO ADJUDICATION. 17. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE AND THAT OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH MARCH, 2017 SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 16/03/2017 MAHATA/- ITA NO. 915 & 975/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 15 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 14/03/2017 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 15/03/2017 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 17/3/17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: