Shri Sailesh P.Gonawala, Surat V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-4, Surat

ITSSA 110/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0008 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Question of law

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! ! ! ! ' #$, BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER (SS) !./ I.T(SS).A. NO.110/AHD/2012 ( & '& & '& & '& & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SHAILESH P.GONAWALA 3/2347-48, KHANGAD SHERI SALABATPURA, SURAT / VS. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4 SURAT ( !./) * !./ PAN/GIR NO. : AEBPG 4741 F ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.P. SHAH, A.R. ,-(+ / . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUBHASH BAINS, CIT-DR ' 0 / $1 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 09/1/2014 23' / $1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/02/2014 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II, BARODA (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 23/12/2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL:- 1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO T HE TUNE OF RS.64,84,976/- U/S.69 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF A LLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND. IT(SS)A NO.110/ AHD/2012 SHAILESH P.GONAWALA VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 2 - 2) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO T HE TUNE OF RS.4,00,000/- U/S.68 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF AL LEGED UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRIES. 3) IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE ADDITIONS C ONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) BE DELETED. 4) THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR GRANTING SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS MAY BE DEEMED JUST AND PROPER BY YOUR HONOURS CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELL ANT. 5) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, DE LETE, SUBSTITUTE OR MODIFY ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF G ROUND OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT A SEARCH ACTION WA S CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION JARI & TEXTILE GROUP ON 20.01.2009. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS CENTRALIZED A ND, SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS ISSUED ON 27/07/2009. THE ASSESSEE, AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 153A, WAS REQ UESTED TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 13/09/20 09 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.54,36,861/-. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 29/12/2010, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) MADE ADDITION OF RS.64,84,976/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND AT SAI ICHCHA PROJECT AND ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.4 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF IT(SS)A NO.110/ AHD/2012 SHAILESH P.GONAWALA VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 3 - UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. AGAINST THIS, ASSESSEE PR EFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER REJECTING THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 3. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.64,84,976/- U/S.69 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF T HE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND BY THE LD.CIT(A). LD.COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE SHRI J.P.SHAH VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ACTION OF THE A O IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENU E HAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF ANY ALLEGATION TH AT THERE WAS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY MADE NOTING THAT THE MONEY WERE TO BE PAID TO THE T ENANTS, HOWEVER THE MATTER WAS NOT RESOLVED WITH THE TENANTS AND THE MO NEY WAS NOT PAID. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE NOTING MADE ON A PIECE OF PAPER AS THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT REPRES ENTING THE ON-MONEY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT PLACED ANY CORROBO RATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.AO AS WELL AS THE LD.CIT(A) BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE WRONGLY INTERPRETED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTI NG ON THE PAPER IS MERELY AN ESTIMATION AND NOT ACTUAL EXPENDITURE. H E ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS ACTUALLY INCURRED IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH MATERI AL ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT(SS)A NO.110/ AHD/2012 SHAILESH P.GONAWALA VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 4 - 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.CIT-DR SHRI SUBHASH BAINS SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT ADMI TTEDLY THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED PAPER RECOVERE D FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN A SATI SFACTORY EXPLANATION OF THE NOTING ON THE SEIZED PAPER. HE SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE RECORD IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ACCOUNTS TREATED A SEPARATE ACCOUNT FOR THE TENANTS, BUT HOW THIS AMOUNT WHICH IS NOW CLAIMED T O BE PAID TO THE TENANTS WAS NOT INCORPORATED INTO SUCH ACCOUNT WHIC H WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CHANGED HIS STAND IN THE STATEMENT AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE OBJECTION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE NOTING ON THE PAPER AT PAGE NO.58 OF TH E ANNEXURE BF-2, PARTY NO.5 SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEE PREMISE AT SALA BATPURA, SURAT. IT IS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS I.E. RS.30,15,024 /- AND THE ACTUAL EXPENSES MADE I.E. 95 LAKHS FOR THE TWO PLOTS OF LA ND OF SAI ICHCHA PROJECT AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. THE ASSE SSEE REPLIED THAT OUT OF 95 LAKHS RUPEES AS SAID FOR LAND/PLOT, ONLY 30 LAKH RUPEES IS FOR THE LAND AND 65 LAKH IS TO BE PAID TO BHADHUT (TENANTS). IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT INITIALLY HE HAD ESTIMATED RS.65 LAKHS FOR BHADUT. LATER ON, HE ESTIMATED 80 LAKH RUPEES MORE IN ADDIT ION TO THE 65 LAKHS IT(SS)A NO.110/ AHD/2012 SHAILESH P.GONAWALA VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 5 - RUPEES ESTIMATED EARLIER. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT TH E EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT ONLY AFTER THOUGHT BUT ALSO THE CHANGE IN STAND. THE AO OBSER VED THAT EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT NO ON-MONEY HAS BEEN PAID BY THE AS SESSEE FOR BOTH PARTS OF THE SAID LAND, WHY A PROFESSIONAL RENOWNED BUILDER AND DEVELOPER IS READY TO SPEND INITIALLY RS.65 LACS F OR THE PLOT OF 687 SQ.MTRS. WHEN THE PLOT OF 728 SQ.MTRS. WAS AVAILAB LE AT RS.27.94 LAKHS ONLY. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AFTER CONSIDERING FI GURES MENTIONED IN SEIZED PAPERS, ESTABLISHING THE LINKAGE OF SEIZED M ATERIAL WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, ON DETAILED REASONING NOT ACCEPTING APPEL LANTS PLEA AND FURTHER THE APPELLANTS ENTIRE EXPLANATION IS SOLELY AN AFT ERTHOUGHT AND NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE EVEN SUCH S EIZED MATERIAL IS FOUND FROM PREMISES OF APPELLANT. 4.1. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE REV ENUE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF NOTIN G FOUND ON A SEIZED PAPER. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT A BUSINESS MAN MA KES ESTIMATION FOR THE PROJECT TAKING BY VARIOUS CONSIDERATION INTO ACCOUN T BUT THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED AND AMOUNT IS SPENT WHEN TH E PROJECT IS EXECUTED. THIS ESTIMATION IS MERELY ON A PRESUMPTIVE FIGURE A ND NOT AN ACTUAL FIGURE. ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION AND ESTIMATION OF FIGURES, THE FIGURE MENTIONED BY NOTING ON A SEIZED PAPER CANNOT BE SUB JECTED TO INCOME- TAX. 5. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO TH E FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THIS FI GURE OF RS.80 LACS WRITTEN IT(SS)A NO.110/ AHD/2012 SHAILESH P.GONAWALA VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 6 - AS BHADUT (TENANTS) IS NOTHING BUT ON-MONEY PA ID TO THE LAND-OWNERS. ADMITTEDLY, THE REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY OTHER MA TERIAL ON RECORD IN SUPPORT ITS CLAIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY MAD E PAYMENT OF ON- MONEY TO THE LAND OWNERS. THE ADMITTED POSITION R EMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED TWO PLOTS OF LAND IN A PARTI CULAR LOCALITY. IT CANNOT BE IMAGINED THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH LA ND WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR CONSIDERING WHETHER THE VALUE DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT OR NOT. THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO FIND OUT AS TO WHAT RATE WAS PREVALENT AT THAT POINT OF TIME IN NEARBY LOCALITY. MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THAT SOME FIGURE IS WRITTEN ON A PIECE OF PAPER SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF THAT FIGURE IN THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, ASSUMING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WRITTEN 8 CRORES IN PLACE OF RS.80 LACS, COULD THE AO MAKE THE ADDI TION OF RS.8 CRORES AS THE ON-MONEY PAID FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND. WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE PLACED MATERIAL ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE FIGURE REPRESENTED IS NOT AN ESTIMATION BU T IT IS ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE ON-MONEY, SINCE THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND IN THE PARTICULAR AREA IS HIGHER THAN THE ASSESSEE HAS REFLECTED IN HIS BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS. MOREOVER, NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD.CIT(A) HAS TREA TED THIS SUM AS RECEIPT OR EXPENDITURE, MADE ON ANY OTHER ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT(SS)A NO.110/ AHD/2012 SHAILESH P.GONAWALA VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 7 - 6. THE SECOND GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.4 LACS MADE U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY T HE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND AGAINST THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HO NBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION P.LTD. REPORTED AT (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) AND ALSO BY THE HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ROHINI BUILDERS ( 256 ITR 360) (GUJ.). HE SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS CASE-LAWS WERE RELIED BEF ORE THE LD.CIT(A), BUT HE DID NOT ADVERT TO THE SUBMISSIONS AS TO HOW THOS E CASE LAWS WERE NOT APPLICABLE. HE SUBMITTED THAT OTHER DETAILS REGA RDING LOANS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO WHICH HAS BEEN DULY RECORDE D BY THE AO, BUT THE AO HAS PROCEEDED ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE AS SESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS. ON THE CONTRA RY, LD.CIT-DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED T HAT A CATEGORICAL FINDING BY THE AO AS WELL AS BY THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE CAPACITY OF THE DEPOSITORS AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. MORE PARTICULARLY, THE BANK ACCOUNT S HOWS THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE ADVANCING THE LOAN TO T HE APPELLANT AND THE DEPOSITORS HAD SHOWN VERY MANNER IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF BLESSING CONSTRUCTION VS. ITO REPORTED AT (2013) 32 TAXMANN.COM 366 (GUJARAT). HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PARA-7 OF THE DECISION DATED 13/03/2013 OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF BLESSING CONSTRUCTION VS. ITO. IT(SS)A NO.110/ AHD/2012 SHAILESH P.GONAWALA VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 8 - 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE CIT-DR HAS HEAVILY RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF BLESSING CONSTRUCTION VS. ITO(SUPRA). WE ALSO FIND THAT THE HONBLE GUJARA T HIGH COURT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION PVT.LTD.(SUPRA), WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES W HERE THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHA RGED THE BURDEN THAT LAY ON HIM BY FURNISHING THE NAMES, ADDRESSES, INDE X NUMBERS OF THE ALLEGED CREDITORS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, CREDITORS HAVE GIVEN CONFIRMATION AS WELL AS THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME WERE ALSO FURNIS HED BEFORE THE AO. THE AO REJECTED THE EVIDENCES ON THE BASIS THAT THE RE IS A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1 LAC BEFORE ONE OR TWO CREDIT ENTRIES OF LOAN M AKING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO HAS RECORDED THAT THE LOAN WAS PROVIDED ON 22/11/2006 OF RS.1 LAC AND ON 6/12/2006 OF RS.1 LAC IN THE CASE O F NILABEN PRANLAL CHEVLI AND THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED ON 28/09/2006. I N THE CASE OF OTHER CREDITORS ALSO, THE LOAN WAS GIVEN ON THE SAME DATE AND THE DEPOSIT WAS ALSO MAD EON 28/09/2006. THE AO ON THE BASIS OF T HE FACTS PRESUME THAT THE CREDITORS WERE NOT HAVING CAPACITY TO GIVE LOAN . ADMITTEDLY, THE AO HAS NOT SUMMONED TO THOSE CREDITORS AND HAS NOT QUE STIONED WHERE FROM THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 LAC WAS DEPOSITED. THEREFORE, R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION PVT.LTD.(SUPRA) AND THE JUDG EMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. ROHINI BUILDERS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS NOT J USTIFIED AND THE AO IS IT(SS)A NO.110/ AHD/2012 SHAILESH P.GONAWALA VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2007-08 - 9 - HEREBY DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NOS.3, 4 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE NEED N O INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) (' #$) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 05/ 02 /2014 71.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ ': / CONCERNED CIT 4. ':() / THE CIT(A)-II, AHMEDABAD 5. 8 #; ,$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<& =0 / GUARD FILE. 4' 4' 4' 4' / BY ORDER, -8$ ,$ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / !) !) !) !) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 29.1.14(DICTATION-PAD 15-PAG ES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 29.1.14 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 D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 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.5.2.14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 5.2.14 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER