The DCIT(OSD), Circle-8,, Ahmedabad v. Sterling Abrasives Ltd,, Ahmedabad

ITA 1135/AHD/2010 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 113520514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AACCS1266P
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1135/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant The DCIT(OSD), Circle-8,, Ahmedabad
Respondent Sterling Abrasives Ltd,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 28-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 21-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 21-01-2011
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 12-04-2010
Judgment Text
- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL AM DY. CIT (OSD) CIRCLE-8 AHMEDABAD. VS. STERLING ABRASIVES LTD. 45/46 GIDC ODHAV ROAD AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) PAN AACCS 1266 P APPELLANT BY :- SHRI R. K. DHANESTA SR.DR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI J. T. SHAH AR O R D E R PER BENCH THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAIN ST THE COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 25.1.2010 WHEREIN HE HAS CANCELLED THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). 2. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO HAD MADE ADDITIONS UNDER SECTIONS 40(A)(IA) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.13 93 900/- RS.13 71 950/- & RS.15 72 800/- FOR ASST. YEARS 200 1-02 2002-03 & 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO MR. JAMES WHITEHEAD OF UNITED KINGDOM FOR SERVICES RENDERED B Y HIM UNDER AGREEMENT DATED 30.01.2003. THE AO EXAMINED THE AGR EEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MR. JAMES WHITEHEAD OF UNITED KING DOM AND FOUND THAT FOLLOWING SERVICES ARE RENDERED TO THE ASSESSEE COM PANY :- ITA NOS.1135 TO 1137/AHD/2010 ASST. YEARS 2001-02 TO 2003-04 ITA NOS.1135 TO 1137/AHD/2010 ASST. YEARS 2001-02 TO 2003-04 2 A) ADVICE ON MARKETING DISTRIBUTION AND SALES STRATEG IES FOR INCREASING SALES & TURNOVER; B) ADVICE ON MANUFACTURING PROCESSES; C) ADVICE ON RAW MATERIAL USE SOURCES OF THE SAME PR ICING AND TERMS OF SUPPLY; D) ADVICE ON IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL MARKETS FOR A BRASIVE PRODUCTS INCLUDING NEW APPLICATIONS; E) FACILITATE FORMATION FOR LONG TERM STRATEGIC ALLIAN CES WITH PRESTIGIOUS CUSTOMERS; & F) PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ANY DEVELOPMENTS IN A BRASIVES INDUSTRY. AFTER DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT AND THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND UK IN THE ASST. ORDER FOR ASST. Y EAR 2004-05 DATED 30.11.2006 THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT AMOUN T PAID TO MR. JAMES WHITEHEAD WAS TAXABLE IN INDIA AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX ON SUCH PAYMENTS. SINCE TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AND IT WAS NOT SO DEDUCTED IN ASST. YEAR 2001-02 2002- 03 & 2003-04 THE AO INFERRED THAT SUCH AMOUNT WAS REQUIRED TO BE DIS ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40A(IA) AND SINCE IT WAS NOT DISALLOWED IN COME TO THAT EXTENT HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE HE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH EXPLANATION 2 THERE UNDER OF THE IT ACT 1961 BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. IN RESPONSE TO TH E NOTICE THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED RETURNS FOR ALL THOSE YEARS CLAIMING PAYM ENT OF CHARGES TO MR. JAMES WHITEHEAD. THE AO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 40(A)(IA) AND MADE THE ADDITIONS. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE QUANTUM APPEAL S CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. GIVING DETAILED REASONS THE LD. C IT(A) HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER :- 3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION AND LEGAL PRO POSITION RELIED ON BY APPELLANT. I AM NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT SAID CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. WITH DUE RESPECT TO VARIOUS CASE LAWS ON WHICH APPELLANT RELIED THE CH ARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A/B/C WAS HELD TO BE MANDATORY BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF ANJUM M.H. ITA NOS.1135 TO 1137/AHD/2010 ASST. YEARS 2001-02 TO 2003-04 3 GHASWALA 251 ITR1 (SC). THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARI NARAIN SONI VS. ITO & ANR. (2009) 23 DTR (RAJ) 48 O RDER DT.13.3.08 DISTINGUISHED THE CASE OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF RANCHI CLUB LT D. 217 ITR 1972 AND HELD THAT SINCE FORM NO.ITNS 150 IS ATTACHED WITH THE ASST. O RDER MENTIONING INTEREST PAYABLE BY ASSESSEE U/S 234A/B/C IT SHOULD BE READ AS PART AND PARCEL OF ASST. ORDER AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR SATISFACTION OF AO. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KALYAN KUMAR RAY VS. CIT 191 ITR 634 HELD SIMILAR POSITION AS FAR AS CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A/B/C OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE A O HAS GIVEN SPECIFIC DIRECTION FOR CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A 234B & 234C IN THE R ESPECTIVE ASST. ORDER AND THE COMPUTATION OF TAX IN THE DEMAND NOTICE INCLUDE SUC H CHARGE OF INTEREST. IT IS THEREFORE THE AO IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN CHARGING OF INTEREST BEING MANDATORY. THE QUESTION OF AFFORDING OPPORTUNITIES TO APPELLANT BE FORE SUCH CHARGING IS MISCONCEIVED SINCE WHILE FRAMING THE ASST. ORDER AND CONSIDERING THE ADDITION MADE TO TOTAL INCOME THE CHARGING OF INTEREST IS INCIDENTAL AND APPELLAN T HAS TO SUBMIT ANY OBJECTION ALONG WITH DETAILS AND EXPLANATION FOR THE ISSUE RELATED TO ADDITIONS SO MADE BY THE AO. THEREFORE THIS GROUND OF APPELLANT IS REJECTED. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE REASONING THE AO CONSIDERED TO LEVY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEFORE LEVY OF PENALTY THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED FOLLOWING REPLY:- DURING THE THREE YEARS I.E. ASST. YEAR 2001-02 2 002-03 & 2003-04 ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PAID CONSULTANCY FEES OF RS.13 93 900/- RS.13 71 950/- & RS.15 72 800/- RESPECTIVELY TO MR. JAMES WHITEHEAD A CITIZEN & RESIDENT OF U.K. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MR.WHITEHEAD DID NOT VISI T INDIA BUT PROVIDED HIS SERVICES FROM UK ONLY. THE QUESTION THAT AROSE WAS WHETHER T HE INCOME OF THE NON-RESIDENT IS TAXABLE IN INDIA IF HE HAS PROVIDED SERVICES FROM ABROAD? IN THIS REGARD WE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F ISHIKAWAJIMA HARIMA HEAVY INDS. LTD. VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI 288 I TR 408 (SC). IN THIS CASE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS VERY CLEARLY HELD THAT FO R ANY SERVICES TO BE TAXABLE IN INDIA NOT ONLY THAT IT SHOULD BE USED IN INDIA BUT IT SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN INDIA. NOW IN THE INSTANT CASE SINCE THE SERVICES WERE NOT PROVIDED IN INDIA THE AMOUNT WAS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA AND THEREFORE NO TD S WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED U/S 195. FURTHER BY FINANCE ACT 2007 THE LAW HAS BEEN AMENDED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT TO TAX SUCH INCOMES IN INDIA. BUT AT THE TIM E WHEN THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THE LAW AS IT STOOD THEN AND AS INTER PRETED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA AND THER EFORE DID NOT REQUIRE TDS TO BE MADE. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT FOR SUBSEQUENT AMENDMEN T TO THE ACT PENALTY PROVISIONS CANNOT BE APPLIED. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO PREDICT THE FUTURE CHANGES IN THE LAW AND COMPLY THE SAME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE EVEN IF IT WAS CONSIDERED THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO MR. JAMES WHITEHEAD WERE TAXABLE IN INDIA IT WOULD FALL UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND UK AND SINCE MR. WHITEHEAD HAD NO PERMANENT ESTABLISHM ENT IN INDIA THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COULD BE TAXED ONLY IN UK. IT WAS F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE THAT IF THE PAYMENT DID NOT FALL UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA & UK THEN IT SHOULD FALL UNDER ARTIC LE 15 I.E. INDEPENDENT PERSONAL SERVICES. HERE ALSO SINCE MR. JAMES WHITEHEADS ST AY IN INDIA WAS LESS THAN 90 DAYS ITA NOS.1135 TO 1137/AHD/2010 ASST. YEARS 2001-02 TO 2003-04 4 IN PREVIOUS YEAR THE AMOUNT PAID TO HIM WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO TAX IN INDIA AND THEREFORE NO TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED U/S 1 95 OF THE IT ACT. IN THIS REGARD WE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF KOLKATA BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF GRAPHITE INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 86 ITD 384. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WITH OUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE THAT IF THE PAYMENT FELL UNDER ARTICLE 13 OF THE DTAA BETWEEN I NDIA & UK EVEN THEN IT WAS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA SINCE THE KNOWLEDGE WAS NOT MADE A VAILABLE BY MR. WHITEHEAD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HAVE TO REQUEST YOUR GOODSELF TO KINDLY DROP THE ABOVE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND OBLIGE. THE APPELLANT VIDE SUBMISSION DT.22.01.10 FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT IT HAD DEDUCTED THE REQUIRED TDS OUT OF THE PAYMENT MADE TO MR. WHITEHE AD OF UK DURING THE FY 2007- 08 AND PAID SUCH TDS AMOUNT WITH INTEREST AFTER GRO SSING OF SUCH PAYMENT. ALL THE DETAILS FOR SUCH DEDUCTION ALONG WITH COPY OF CHALL AN WERE SUBMITTED. IT WAS THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT SINCE DUE TDS IS ALREADY PAID AND ALSO DUE TAXES HAVE ALSO BEEN PAID THERE IS NO LOSS TO REVENUE AND IT IS TH E ONLY MATTER OF INTERPRETATION OF PROVISION AS ON THAT DATE I.E. ON THE 1 ST APRIL OF RESPECTIVE ASST. YEARS WHERE APPELLANT DISCLOSED ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME AS PER LAW EXISTING ON THAT DATE AND THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALMENT DOES NOT ARISE. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS WAS NOT MALAFIDE AND AS PE R THE ADVICE OF TAX CONSULTANTS BASED ON PREVAILING POSITION OF LAW AT THAT TIME. THE AO HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ABOVE EXPLANATI ON AND LEVIED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). IN THIS REGARD HE OBSERVED AS UNDER :- 3. FOR THIS DISALLOWANCE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U /S 271(1)(C) WERE INITIATED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON 15/9/2008 AND THE SAID NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESS EE ON 6.10.2008. WHEN THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE THIS OFFICE VIDE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 12/3/2009 AND THE SAME WAS SE NT TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY SPEED POST ON 13/3/2009. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASKE D TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY A PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 271 OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS SUBMISSION DATED 19/03/2009 HAS CONTENDED THE SAME ARGUMENT AS WAS MADE BY IT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO HAS ALREADY CONSIDERED SUCH SUBMISSION AND THEREAFTER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U /S 271(1)(C) WERE INITIATED. THAT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY IN THE M ATTER THEREBY INDIRECTLY ADMITTED THE DEFAULT COMMITTED BY IT. 5. THEREFORE I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEDED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND/OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I TS INCOME AND FOR THIS DEFAULT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION (1) IS LEVIED. THE WORKING OF PENALTY IS AS UNDER :- AMOUNT (RS.) 1. ASSESSED INCOME 2388076/- 2. TAX ON ASSESSED INCOME 944484/- 3. TAX ON (ASSESSED INCOME-CONCEALED INCOME) 393196 /- ITA NOS.1135 TO 1137/AHD/2010 ASST. YEARS 2001-02 TO 2003-04 5 RS.2388076/- (-) RS.1393900/- =RS.994176/- 4. TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED (2-3) 551287/- 5. MINIMUM PENALTY LEVIABLE @ 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED 551287/- 6. MAXIMUM PENALTY LEVIABLE @ 300% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED 1653862/- THE LD. CIT(A) CANCELLED THE PENALTY HOLDING THAT A O HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY SPECIFIC FINDING BY WHICH IT COULD BE CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN THIS REGARD HE OBSERVED AS UNDER :- 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPEL LANT AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE APPELLANTS S UBMISSION THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVE D SUCH DISALLOWANCES U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT DOES NOT WARRANT ANY PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. THIS FURTHER STRENGTHENED BY THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAD ALREADY DEDUCTED TDS AFTER GROSSING UP AND PAID WITH INTEREST ON SUCH AMOUNT THEREBY THERE IS NO LOSS TO REVENUE. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT APPELLANT DISCLOSED THESE TRANSACTIONS I N ITS ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPECTIVE ASST. YEAR AND THE SAME WERE AUDITED BOT H UNDER THE COMPANY AS WELL AS TAX AUDIT. IT IS ONLY AFTER THE HONBLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF ISHIKAWAJIMA HARIMA HEAVY INDUS. LTD. VS. DIT MUMB AI IS CLARIFICATORY EXPLANATION WAS INSERTED IN SECTION 9 OF THE ACT WITH RETROSPEC TIVE DATE I.E. W.E.F. 1.6.76. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION IS THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT AUTOMATIC AND REQUIRE MUCH MORE THAN ASSESSMENT AND ALSO DIFFERENT THAN ASST. REQUIRES TO BE VIEWED IN REFERENCE TO VARIOUS LEGAL PROPOSITION. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGH T OUT ANY SPECIFIC FINDING BY WHICH IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT APPELLANT HAD FURNIS HED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. EVEN THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT PR OPERLY APPRECIATED BY THE AO AND IT WAS NEITHER PROVED TO BE MALAFIDE NOR FALSE-EXPL ANATION. JUST BY REJECTING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT BASED ON FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES WILL MAKE PENALTY SO IMPOSED NOT TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. IT IS THER EFORE THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE PENALTY SO IMPOSED FOR ASST. YEAR 01-02 02-03 & 02- 03. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF APPELLANT ARE ALLOWED IN ALL THE THREE YEARS. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THERE IS NO CASE FOR INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE REASONS ARE THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL WITH THE AO TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 40(A)(IA) WAS DISALLOWED WHICH IS ALSO SUBJECT TO DISPUTE AS TO W HETHER PAYMENT MADE TO MR. JAMES WHITEHEAD WOULD BE TAXABLE OR NOT UNDE R DTAA. THE ITA NOS.1135 TO 1137/AHD/2010 ASST. YEARS 2001-02 TO 2003-04 6 ASSESSEE HAS MADE A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR PAYMENT OF FEES TO MR. JAMES WHITEHEAD ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICES RENDERED BY HIM WH ICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE. ONLY DISPUTE IS WHETHER SUCH PAYMENT WOULD BE TAXABLE IN INDIA OR NOT. THUS IT IS ONLY A CLAIM WHICH MAY OR MAY NO T BE SUSTAINED. EVEN IF CLAIM IS NOT SUSTAINED THEN MERELY MAKING ANY UN-SU STAINABLE CLAIM PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED AS HELD BY I TAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. ACIT (2 010) 6 TAXMAN 118 AND RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD (2010) 322 ITR 1 58 (SC) AND GLORIOUS REALTY (P) LTD. VS. ITO (2009) 29 SOT 292 (MUM). ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS BEFOR E THE AO AND DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED ON THE GROUND THAT PAYMENTS MADE TO MR. JAMES WHITEHEAD WAS NOT TAXABLE HENCE NO TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE MAD E THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BONA FIDE. IN ANY CASE THERE IS NO MATERIAL CONTRARY TO THE EXPLANATI ON FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(A) IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS. 5. IN THE RESULT ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY TH E REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28.1.11. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER AHMEDABAD DATED : 28.1.11. MAHATA/- ITA NOS.1135 TO 1137/AHD/2010 ASST. YEARS 2001-02 TO 2003-04 7 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD 1.DATE OF DICTATION 21/1/2011 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 24/1/ 2011 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 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.. 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..