The ACIT,Anand Circle, Anand V. Laxmi Protein Products Pvt. Ltd., Anand

ITA 980/AHD/2005

• Counselvise Citation: 98020514 RSA 2005
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: A L THAKKAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Proportionate interest; Valuation report

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, D BENCH , , , , ! ! ! ! . .. . . .. .#$%& #$%& #$%& #$%&, , , , ' ' ' ' , ( ( ( ( BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.705/AHD/2005 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2001-2002] LAXMI PROTEIN PRODUCTS P. LTD. APPROACH ROAD VASAD. /VS. ITO, WARD-3 ANAND. ITA NO.980/AHD/2005 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2001-2002] ITO, WARD-3 ANAND. /VS. LAXMI PROTEIN PRODUCTS P. LTD. APPROACH ROAD VASAD. ( (( (*+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( (,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) ./ 0 1 / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.L. THAKKAR 3 0 1 / REVENUE BY : SHRI BL.YADAV, DR 45 0 /6'/ DATE OF HEARING : 17 TH JANUARY, 2012 7$8 0 /6'/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.03.2012 / O R D E R PER A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE ARE TWO CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, BARODA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. ITA NO.705 AND 980/AHD/2005 -2- 2. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONF IRMING DISALLOWING OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.8,31,418 MADE BY THE ITO, WARD- 3, ANAND WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S.143(3). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT IS NOTIC ED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN-OVER T HE RUNNING BUSINESS OF M/S.MAHALAXMI PULSE MILLS AND M/S.TIRUPATI INDUSTRI ES, TWO PARTNERSHIP FIRMS ON 31-3-2000. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PURCHASED FIXED ASSETS OF M/S.RANCHHODRAI PULSE MIL LS, M/S.SARASWATI PULSE MILLS AND M/S.LAXMI PROTEINS PRODUCTS AS ON 3 1-3-2000. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLOTTED THE SHARE S TO THE PARTNERS OF M/S.MAHALAXMI PULSE MILLS AND M/S.TIRUPATI INDUSTRI ES AS PER THEIR RATIO OF PROFIT SHARING IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, WHICH WAS HELD AT 20% EACH BY FIVE PARTNERS. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE W DV OF THE BUILDINGS IN THE BOOKS OF THESE TWO PARTNERSHIP FIRMS AS ON 31-3-200 0 WAS RS.2,94,695/- IN RESPECT OF MAHALAXMI PULSE MILLS AND RS.22,52,065/- IN RESPECT OF M/S.TIRUPATI INDUSTRIES FOR BOTH THE LAND AND BUILD ING TOTALING TO RS.25,46,760/-. BEFORE TAKING OVER THESE TWO PARTN ERSHIP FIRM ON 31-3- 2000, THE LAND AND BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN REVALUED BY THESE TWO PARTNERSHIP FIRMS. AS PER THE REVALUATION REPORT DATED 01-6-19 99, THE BUILDING OF M/S.MAHALAXMI PULSE MILLS WAS VALUED AT RS.32,33,40 0/- AND LAND & BUILDING OF M/S.TIRUPATI INDUSTRIES WAS VALUED AT R S.96,10,000/-, TOTALING TO RS.1,28,43,400/-. THE DEPRECIATION ON THE LAND & B UILDING WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF REVALUED AMOUNT, BUT I T WAS HELD BY THE AO THAT THE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY ON WDV OF BUILDI NGS IN THE BOOKS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM BY INVOKING OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 43(1) OF THE ACT. IN THIS MANNER, HE MADE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATIO N OF RS.8,31,418/-. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.705 AND 980/AHD/2005 -3- 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELI ANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: I) CHITRA PUBLICITY COMPANY P. LTD. VS. ACIT, 127 TTJ (AHD)(TM) 1; II) DCIT VS. LAFARGE INDIA LTD., 9 TAXMANN.COM 40 (MUM) ; III) ASHWIN VANASPATI INDUSTRIES VS COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX 255 ITR 26 (GUJ); IV) UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. DCIT, 73 ITD 150 (AHD) ; V) ACIT VS. ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD., 111 ITD 341 (CHEN)(TM) THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW AND THE JUDGMENT CITED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE BASIS THAT AFTER AMENDMENT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43(1) AND THE SECTION 47(X III), THE OLDER JUDGMENT IS NO MORE APPLICABLE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER IN PARA-3.8 HAS STATED THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD THAT PARTNER S OR FIRMS HAVE PAID CAPITAL GAIN TAX SO AS TO ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE COUNSEL TO ADOPT THE WDV AT A REVALUED FIGURE. BEFORE US ALSO, NO EVIDENCE WAS PLACED TO SHOW THAT THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM HAVE PAID CAPITAL GAIN TAX. I N THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF VARIOUS JUDG MENTS CITED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FIRST JUDGMENT CIT ED IS DECISION OF THE THIRD MEMBER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F CHITRA PUBLICITY COMPANY P. LTD. (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE AS SESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED THE BUSINESS OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM TO THE COMPANY AND SEC TION 47(XIII) WAS APPLICABLE AND THERE WAS REVALUATION OF THE ASSETS. THEREFORE, THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR AND IN THAT CASE, THE THIRD MEMBER DECIDED THE CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HEAD NOTE OF THIS CASE IS REPRODUCED BELOW: ITA NO.705 AND 980/AHD/2005 -4- DEPRECIATIONACTUAL COSTAPPLICABILITY OF EXPLN. 3 TO S. 43(1) ASSESSEE COMPANY TOOK OVER ADVERTISEMENT BUSINESS O F A FIRM W.E.F 1ST APRIL, 2003, AS PER MEMORANDUM OF EVEN DATEIT CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON VARIOUS ASSETS INCLUDING HOARDINGS, GOODWILL/BUSINESS NAME AND TWO BUILDINGS AFTER REVA LUING THEM AO REWORKED THE DEPRECIATION BY INVOKING EXPLN. 3 T O S. 43(1) ON THE BASIS THAT THE BOOK VALUE OF THE HOARDINGS AND GOODWILL/BUSINESS NAME WAS NIL IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM AND BY TAKING THE WDV OF BUILDINGS AS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM AS ACTUAL COSTNOT JUSTIFIEDMAIN PURPOSE OF EXPLN. 3 TO S. 43(1) IS T O EMPOWER THE AO TO DETERMINE ACTUAL COST OF ASSETS WHERE THE ASS ESSEE IS WRONGFULLY CLAIMING DEPRECIATION ON ENHANCED COST O F SUCH ASSETS ACTUAL COST IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE AO HAVING RE GARD TO ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASEIN ORDER TO APPLY EXPLN. 3 TO S. 43(1), AO HAS TO DETERMINE THE 'ACTUAL COST' OF THE ASSETS TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH CAN ONLY MEAN ARM'S LENGTH VALUE OR REAL VALU E OR WORTH OF ASSETS TRANSFERREDBURDEN TO DETERMINE THE 'ACTUAL COST' IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IS ON THE AO AND NOT ON THE ASS ESSEEAO HAS TO SHOW THAT HE HAS GATHERED RELEVANT MATERIAL AND DETERMINED ACTUAL COST AFTER APPLICATION OF MINDNO ATTEMPT WHATSOEVE R WAS MADE BY THE AO OR THE CIT WHO APPROVED OF HIS ACTION OR THE CIT(A) TO COLLECT ANY MATERIAL OR TO TAKE ANY STEPS TO DETERM INE THE ACTUAL COST OF THE SAID ASSETSAO DID NOT CONSIDER THE REPORTS OF THE REGISTERED VALUER WHICH WERE PLACED BEFORE HIM IN SUPPORT OF T HE VALUE OF THE HOARDINGS AND GOODWILLIT WAS FOR THE AO TO POINT O UT THE DEFECT IN THE VALUE OF HOARDINGS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE COULD NOT MECHANICALLY ADOPT THEIR VALUE AT NILAT NO STAGE T HE REVENUE AUTHORITIES DOUBTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CONSIDER ATION OF RS.8 CRORES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THROUGH ALLOTME NT OF SHARES OR QUESTIONED THE VALUE OF ANY OF THE SAID THREE ASSET SREGISTERED VALUER WAS FULLY COMPETENT TO DETERMINE THE VALUE O F HOARDINGS AS ON 1ST APRIL, 2003, IN OCTOBER, 2004VALUATION REPORT COULD NOT BE REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT IT RELATED TO A PRIOR D ATEFURTHER, MERELY BECAUSE THE COST OF HOARDINGS WAS CLAIMED AS A REVE NUE EXPENDITURE BY THE ERSTWHILE FIRM, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT ITS VALUE IS NIL EVEN IN THE HANDS OF THE TRANSFEREECOST OF 2,100 HOARDINGS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE NILAS REGARDS ACTUAL COST O F GOODWILL OR TRADE NAME, THE REGISTERED VALUER DETERMINED ITS VA LUE AT RS. 3 CRORES GIVING DETAILED CALCULATIONS IN THE VALUATION REPOR TAO DID NOT EXAMINE THESE CALCULATIONS AND MADE NO ATTEMPT TO A RRIVE AT HIS OWN CONCLUSIONTURNOVER OF THE SAID FIRM WAS MORE THAN RS. 8 CRORES IN THE LAST THREE YEARS OF ITS BUSINESSVALUE OF GOODW ILL OR TRADE NAME OF SUCH A CONCERN WHICH WAS IN BUSINESS FOR SEVERAL YEARS COULD NOT BE NILNO FAULT HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE VALUATION REP ORTTHEREFORE, ITA NO.705 AND 980/AHD/2005 -5- SAME COULD NOT BE REJECTEDIN THE CASE OF TWO BUILD INGS, AO MADE NO ATTEMPT TO FIND WHETHER THERE WAS ANY ERROR IN T HE COST SHOWN BY THE PARTIES IN THE MEMORANDUMTHUS, THE SAID FIGURE COULD NOT BE REJECTEDWITHOUT PROPER DETERMINATION OF 'ACTUAL CO ST' IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RECORD A SATISFACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON ENHANCED COST OF ASSETS WITH THE MA IN PURPOSE OF REDUCTION OF TAX LIABILITY. THEREFORE, NO CASE IS MADE OUT FOR APPLYING EXPLN. 3 TO S. 43(1). IN THE ABOVE CASE, A NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS WERE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREAFTER, THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. NO DE CISION HAD BEEN CITED BY THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE IN SUPPORT OF THE CAS E OF THE REVENUE. IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT NO DECISION W AS REFERRED TO BY HIM ALSO IN HIS FINDINGS FROM PARA.3.3 TO 3.8 OF HIS OR DER. THE ONLY BASIS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS THIS THAT BECAUSE OF SECT ION 47(XIII) NO CAPITAL GAIN TAX IS PAYABLE BY THE FIRM OR PARTNERS THEREOF. IN THE CASE OF CHITRA PUBLICITY (SUPRA) ALSO, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS AFTER INSERTION OF SECTION 47(XIII) AND THIS IS DULY NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE AND IT WAS NOTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 47(XIII) OR 43(6) ARE NO T ATTRACTED AS THESE ARE DEEMING PROVISIONS AND HENCE CANNOT BE READ INTO EXPLANATION TO 43(1). HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE T HIRD MEMBER BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CITRA PUBLICIT Y COMPANY P. LTD. (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT SINCE THE AO HAD NOT CITED ANY GOOD GROUND FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE COST OF THE ASSETS, AS VALUED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER OR SHOWN IN THE MEMORANDUM OF TRANSFER AND MADE NO ATTEMPT T O UNDERTAKE THE EXERCISE OF FINDING OUT THE ACTUAL COST OF THE SAID ASSETS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TAKEOVER OF BUSINESS OF A FIRM, NO CASE IS MADE OUT FOR APPLYING THE EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 43(1) AND THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE GRO UND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND THE ONLY EFFECTIVE ITA NO.705 AND 980/AHD/2005 -6- GROUND IN THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE INTER-CONNECTED AND THESE ARE DECIDED TOGETHER. 7. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READS A S UNDER: 2. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONF IRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST RS.404,151/- MADE BY THE I TO, WHILE PASSING ORDER U/S.143(3) THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE INTEREST DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.2,54,309/- BEING PROPORTIONATE INTEREST ON THE DIVERSION OF IN TEREST BEARING FUNDS INSPITE OF THE ACT THAT IN THE TAKE OVER OF B USINESS OF THE TWO FIRMS AS GOING CONCERN, THE CONSIDERATION PAID INCL UDED THEREIN THE ELEMENT REGARDING THE ADVANCES TO TRADE/NON-TRADE P URPOSES ALSO AND THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED FURTHER IN FAILING TO APPRE CIATE THAT ADVANCES MADE BY THE ERSTWHILE FIRMS STAND IN THE S AME FOOTING AS THAT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN THE TREATMENT OF DIVERSION OF INTEREST BEARING BUSINESS FUNDS. 8. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE AO DISALLOWED AN AM OUNT OF RS.2,57,557/- AND RS.3,00,800/- OUT OF INTEREST ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DIVERTED ITS INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FO R NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BE FORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO HAS GRANTED RELIEF OF RS.1,54,206/- AND CONFIRM ED THE BALANCE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.404,151/-. IN THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE, THE AMOUNT OF DELETION HAS BEEN STATED TO BE RS.2,54,30 9/-. NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL FOR THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL FOR THE DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A). 9. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESS EE THAT AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET (COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE NO.6 TO 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK), THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING OWN FUNDS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.158.32 LAKHS AS ON 31-3-2001 IN FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL. IT IS ALSO SUB MITTED THAT THIS INCLUDED THE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION PENDING ALLOTMENT O F RS.58.32 LAKHS AND ITA NO.705 AND 980/AHD/2005 -7- THIS WAS RECEIVED DURING THE PRESENT YEAR. HE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT IT GOES TO SHOW THAT OWN FUNDS WERE MORE THAN THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES AND THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS JUSTIFIED . THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RE NDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS RELIANCE UTILITIES AN D POWER LTD., 313 ITR 340 (BOM). THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW AND THE JUDGMENT CITED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE AO IN PARA 3.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN TO FOUR PARTIES AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SUCH INTEREST FREE ADVANCES IS RS.22.69 LAKHS APPROX. AS PER THE JUDG MENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE FUNDS AVAILABLE ARE BOTH THE INTERES T-FREE AND INTEREST BEARING, THEN A PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT INVESTMENTS WOU LD BE OUT OF THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IF THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH TH E ASSESSEE IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, AND HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON INTEREST F REE ADVANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND GROUND RAISED IN THE REVENU ES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. ITA NO.705 AND 980/AHD/2005 -8- SD./- SD./- ( /BHAVNESH SAINI) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . .. . . .. .#$%& #$%& #$%& #$%& /A.K. GARODIA) ' ' ' ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ORDER PRONOUNCED SD./- SD./- (KUL BHARAT)JM (A K GARODIA)AM C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION : 06-03-2012 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER. : 07-03-2012 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 DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT. : 21.03.2012 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER : 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. : 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK. : 26/3/2012 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. : 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. : 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER :