The ACIT, Central Circle-1,, Surat v. The Nakoda Textile Industries Ltd., Surat

ITA 2583/AHD/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 258320514 RSA 2009
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2583/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT, Central Circle-1,, Surat
Respondent The Nakoda Textile Industries Ltd., Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 18-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 03-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 03-11-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 11-09-2009
Judgment Text
- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI D.K.TYAGI JM AND A. MOHAN ALANKAMON Y AM. ASSTT. CIT CEN.CIR-1 SURAT. VS. M/S NAKODA TEXTILES INDUS.LTD. 738 AJANTA SHOPPING CENTRE RING ROAD SURAT. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL SR.DR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI HIREN VEPARI AR DATE OF HEARING : 3/11/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :18.11.11 O R D E R PER D. K. TYAGI JUDICIAL MEMBER . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 14/07/2009 FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05. THE GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST CANCELLATION OF PENALTY OF R S.14 34 950/- LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C). 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05 ON 01.11.2004 DECLARI NG TOTAL INCOME AT ITA NO.2583/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR :2004-05 ITA NO.2583/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 2 NIL. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 29. 12.2006 BY MAKING ADDITION WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT( A) OF RS.39 99 872/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPREC IATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.2 62 37 446/ - AGAINST ALLOWABLE DEPRECIATION OF RS.2 22 37 574/- THEREBY MAKING AN EXCESS CLAIM OF RS.39 99 872/- AS STATED ABOVE. DURING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED THE MISTAKE AND THEREFORE T HE EXCESS DEPRECIATION WAS DISALLOWED. THE AO THEREFORE ISSUED A SHOW CAU SE NOTICE WHY PENALTY BE NOT LEVIED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD GIVEN CLEAR WORKING WITH REASONS AND ALL THE DETAILS WERE GIVEN AND THE ERROR OF DIGIT HAD CREPT IN WHILE WRITING THE OPENING STOCK OF WDV DURING THE ASST. YEAR 2002-03. THIS ISSUE WAS COMING FROM THE EARLIE R YEAR AND CONTINUED IN THE CURRENT YEAR. AS SOON AS THE ERROR WAS NOTIC ED THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED. THE MISTAKE WAS BONA FIDE AND THEREFORE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON SEVERAL DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD BEFORE THE AO. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION AND DISTI NGUISHED THE CASE LAWS AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS 306 ITR 277 LEVIED TH E MINIMUM PENALTY SAYING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE FALSE CLAIM OF DE PRECIATION OF A HUGE AMOUNT. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES EXPLAN ATION THAT THE ERROR OCCURRED DUE TO AUDITORS MISTAKE. THE AO STATED TH AT THIS ISSUE WAS DUE TO DELIBERATE INTENTION OF CONCEALING THE INCOME AN D THEREFORE THE ITA NO.2583/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 3 ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME. HE THEREFORE LEVIED THE MINIMUM PENALTY. 3. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE REITE RATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO SAYING THAT THE MISTAKE WAS COMM ITTED BY THE TAX AUDITOR AND IT WAS OVERLOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN T HE EARLIER YEAR IT WAS OVERLOOKED BY THE AO ALSO. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT IN ASST. YEAR 2002- 03 INSTEAD OF FIGURE OF OPENING WDV OF RS.3472149/- THE FIGURE WAS BY MISTAKE WRITTEN AS RS.34721149/- LEADING TO HIGHER CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN ASST. YEAR 2002-03 AND HIGHER CLAIM OF WDV IN AS ST. YEAR 2002-03. THIS RESULTED IN HIGHER WDV IN ASST. YEAR 2003-04 A ND CONSEQUENTLY IN THE CURRENT YEAR ALSO LEADING TO A MUCH HIGHER CLAI M OF DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THIS WORKING WHICH SHOWED THAT D UE TO THIS A HIGHER DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS.3999872/- WAS MADE. SINCE THE MISTAKE WAS BONA FIDE THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT NO PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBSERVATION OF AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 2.3.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO. THE WORKING SHOWN BY THE APP ELLANT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE MISTAKE HAPPENED BECAUSE IN ASST. YEAR 200 2-03 INSTEAD OF OPENING WDV OF RS.3472149/- THE FIGURE WAS MISTAKEN LY WRITTEN AS RS.34721149/- BECAUSE OF WHICH THE HIGHER CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION TOOK PLACE. SINCE THE CALCULATION MATCHES WITH THE CLAIM IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ITA NO.2583/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 4 MISTAKE IS BONA FIDE. THE LEGAL POSITION REGARDING LEVY OF PENALTY IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS & OTHERS (SUP RA) IS AS UNDER : 25. THE EXPLANATIONS APPENDED TO S.271(1)C OF THE IT ACT ENTIRELY INDICATES THE ELEMENT OF STRICT LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALMENT OR FOR GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHILE FILING RETURN. THE JUD GMENT IN DILIP N. SHROFFS CASE (SUPRA) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EFFECT AND RELE VANCE OF SECTION 276C OF THE IT ACT. OBJECT BEHIND ENACTMENT OF SECTION 271( 1)C R.W. EXPLANATION INDICATE THAT THE SAID SECTION HAS BEEN ENACTED TO PROVIDE FOR A REMEDY FOR LOSS OF REVENUE. THE PENALTY UNDER THAT PROVISION IS A C IVIL LIABILITY. WHILLFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTR ACTING CIVIL LIABILITY AS IS THE CASE IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTION UNDER SEC.276C OF IT ACT. 2.3.2 RECENTLY THIS DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT HAS BEEN ANALYZED BY THE HONBLE ITAT MUMBAI A BENCH IN T HE CASE OF VIP INDUSTRIES LTD. ITA NO.4524 & 4383/MUM/06 FOR ASST . YEAR 2000-01 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 20.03.2009 AND BY HONBLE ITAT AHM EDABAD BENCH-D IN THE CASE OF AISHWARYA PRINTS D * P MILLS (P) LTD. ITA NO.905/AHD/08 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 17.04.2009 WHEREIN THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAVE STATED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT HELD THAT IN ALL CASES WHERE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY S HALL MECHANICALLY FOLLOW. THE RATIO DECIDENDI ON THE JUDGMENT IS CONF INED TO WILLFUL CONCEALMENT BEING NOT VITAL FOR IMPOSING PENALTY U/ S 271(1)C. IT IS STILL NECESSARY THAT CONCEALMENT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED BEFORE PENALTY IS IMPOSED OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS H AS TO BE ESTABLISHED BEFORE LEVYING THE PENALTY. THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT HAS ALSO CLARIFIED ITS DECISION GIVEN IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA TEXTIL E PROCESSORS & OTHERS (SUPRA). IN ITS DECISION GIVEN IN THE CASE OF UOI V S. RAJASTHAN SPINNING 224 CTR 1 WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS STA TED THAT IN THE CASE LAWS IN ALL THE CASES OF ADDITION PENALTY WOUL D NOT GET AUTOMATICALLY ATTRACTED. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS CLARIFIED THAT NO SUCH DECISION WAS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESS ORS & OTHERS THAT IN ALL CASES ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCE PENALTY WOULD GET AUTOMATICALLY ATTRACTED. 2.3.3 SINCE THIS BEING A CASE OF BONA FIDE MISTA KE THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IS DELETED AND THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE A LLOWED. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THE REVENUE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONCLUDING THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD NOT ITA NO.2583/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 5 CONCEALED ITS INCOME ON THE BASIS OF CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE OPENING VALUE OF WDV OF VEHI CLE FOR ASST. YEAR 2002-03 AS RS.3 47 21 149/- IN PLACE OF RS.34 72 14 9/- BY MISTAKE IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REVISE ITS RETUR N OF INCOME FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05 FOR WHICH TIME WAS AVAILABLE TILL 31.0 3.2006 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE WDV BEING TAKEN WRONGLY WAS CONFRONTE D TO THE ASSESSEE ON 28.02.2006 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS FOR ASST. YEAR 2003-04. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ACCEPT ITS MISTAKE ON ITS OWN IN ASST. YEAR 2004-05 AND THE AO HAD TO SHOW CAUSE ON THIS ISSUE ON 04.12.2006 EVEN WHEN THE MISTAKE HAD BEEN POINTED OUT TO THE ASSESS EE IN THIS RESPECT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASS T. YEAR 2003-04 ON 28.02.2006 AND AN ADDITION HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.03.2006 FOR ASST. YEAR 2003-04. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ACCEPT ITS MISTAKE EVEN AFTER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED AND THIS ISSUE WAS CHALLENGED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CONCEAL ED ITS INCOME IGNORING THAT THE AUDITORS COULD NOT HAVE MISSED MU CH HIGHER FIGURES OF WDV AS PER DEPRECIATION CHART IN COMPARISON TO FIGU RES OF NET BLOCK OF ASSETS IN B/S SCHEDULES ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF HIGH ER RATES OF DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME-TAX ACT VIS--VIS THE RATES IN THE CO MPANIES ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID N OT FILE REVISED RETURN FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05 THEN IT DID NOT ACCEPT ITS MAKE ON ITS OWN IN ASST. ITA NO.2583/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 6 YEAR 2004-05 THEN IT FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDI TION AND REPEATED THE SAME MISTAKE FOR ASST. YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05. TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT CONCEALED I TS INCOME AND HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITE D BEFORE HIM. HE ALSO RELIED ON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS BEFORE US :- I) A. M. SHAH & COMPANY VS. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 415 (GU J) II) ITO VS. GEEP INDUS. SYNDICATE LTD. 23 ITD 448 (ALL. ) III) ANAND LIQUORS VS. CIT 232 ITR 35 (KER) IV) 101 ITR 39 V) CIT VS. LAL CHAND TIRATH RAM225 ITR 675 (P&H) VI) 329 ITR 510 (DEL) IN VIEW OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR SUBMITTED T HAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND R ELIED ON THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 9.2.2009 TO THE AO DURING PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2003-04. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS FOR ASST. YEAR 2003-04 REVISED DEPRECIATION CHART FOR ALL THE RELE VANT ASST. YEARS INCLUDING ASST. YEAR 2004-05 WAS ALSO FILED. THEREF ORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE CONCEALED ANY INFORMATION FROM THE RE VENUE FOR WHICH PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN LEVIED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE UPHELD . HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF BTX CHEMICALS (P) LTD. VS. CIT 288 ITR 196 (GUJ). ITA NO.2583/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 7 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GOIN G THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DURIN G THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR ASST. YEAR 2003-04 VIDE PARA 4 OF I TS LETTER DATED 9.2.2009 HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER : (4) COMING TO THE POINT OF LEVYING PENALTY IN RES PECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON CAR OF RS.49 99 840/- AS PER PAR A (1)(I) ABOVE KINDLY APPRECIATE THAT THIS WAS A BONAFIDE ERROR BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ERROR IN ONE OF THE DIGITS IN CARRYING F ORWARD OF WDV WHILE WORKING OUT DEPRECIATION. THIS WAS IMMEDIATEL Y ADMITTED AND EXPLAINED TO THE AO VIDE LETTER NO.TN-2325 OF 1 3.3.2006 IN PARAGRAPH (3) THEREOF. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PARA GRAPH IS REPRODUCED BELOW AND RELEVANT ATTACHMENTS ARE ALREA DY ON RECORDS. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO DETAILS OF VEHICLE SHOWN ON PAGE NO.26 OF FORM NO.3CD ALONG WITH THE CHART OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED THEREON. PARTICULARS OF DEPRECIATION IN FORM NO.3CD OPERATE AS A BLOCK. HOW EVER VEHICLE-WISE DEPRECIATION AS PER SCHEDULE 6 OF BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.03 IS ENCLOSED. (PAGE 36). AN ERROR HAD CREPT IN WHILE PREPARING DE PRECIATION BLOCK OF VEHICLES FOR ASST. YEAR 2002-03 ON ACCOUNT OF COMPU TER SLIP OF DIGIT. THE SAME ERROR CONTINUED AND THE CARRIED FORWARD BLOCK WAS D RAINED AS BROUGHT FORWARD IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. I AM GR ATEFUL FOR POINTING OUT THE MISTAKE. I AM ENCLOSING A DETAILED WORKING OF BLOCK OF ASSETS YEAR OVER YEAR WHICH MAY KINDLY BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.(P.NO. 37 TO 38) I AM SURE YOU SHALL APPRECIATE THAT THIS MISTAKE WENT UNNOTICED B Y THE ASSESSEE THE STATUTORY AUDITOR AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT. I SINCERELY REGR ET THE ERROR AND THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED IN THIS REGARD. YOU ARE REQUES TED TO KINDLY GIVE CURATIVE EFFECT TO THE DEPRECIATION AND THEREFORE TO THE UNA BSORBED DEPRECIATION. REVISED YEAR-WISE COMPUTATIONS ARE ENCLOSED TO GIVE NECESSARY EFFECT (P.NO.39 TO 42). ASSESSEE ALSO PROVIDED CLEAR WORKING WITH REASONS T HEREOF IN THIS REGARD. AS A MATTER OF FACT ERROR OF DIGIT HAD CRE PT IN WHILE STRETCHING THE OPENING BLOCK OF WDV DURING ASST. YE AR 2002-03 FROM THE PREVIOUS PERIOD AND NOT THIS YEAR. THIS ER ROR CONTINUED. ON TOP OF EVERYTHING THIS ERROR HAD ACTUALLY BEEN INCURRED BY THE TAX AUDITOR AND ON GAINING THE KNOWLEDGE ASSESSEE I MMEDIATELY CONCEDED. NOW TAXING ASSESSEE ON SUCH DISALLOWED D EPRECIATION IS JUSTIFIABLE BUT PENALIZING ASSESSEE FOR AN INADVERT ENT AND UNINTENTIONAL ERROR THAT TOO INCURRED IN THE EARLI ER YEAR THAT TOO ITA NO.2583/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 8 INCURRED BY THE TAX AUDITOR WOULD BE COMPLETELY UN JUSTIFIED AND UNCALLED FOR. HONEST ADMISSION OF FACTUAL ERROR MA Y NOT BE STRETCHED TO THE LEVEL OF PENALTY. THEREFORE IT IS REQUESTED THAT BY ACKNOWLEDGING AND APPRECIATING THE FACTS PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS MAY BE DROPPED ON THIS COUNT. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT DURING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS OF ASST. YEAR 2003-04 THERE WAS AN HONEST ADMISSION OF FACTU AL ERROR IN PREPARING DEPRECIATION OF BLOCK OF VEHICLES FOR ASST. YEAR 20 02-03 ON ACCOUNT OF COMPUTER SLIP OF DIGIT WHICH RESULTED IN HIGHER CLA IM OF WDV IN ASST. YEAR 2002-03 WHICH RESULTED IN HIGHER CLAIM OF WDV IN ASST. YEAR 2003-04 AND CONSEQUENTLY IN THE CURRENT YEAR ALSO. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED REVISED DEPRECI ATION WORKING FOR THE RELEVANT ASST. YEARS INCLUDING THE YEAR UNDER APPEA L CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS FOR ASST. YEAR 2003-04 VIDE LETTER DATED 13.3.2006. THIS FACT WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE LD. DR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FA CTS IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME . THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF BONA FIDE MISTAKE FOR WHICH PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) C ANNOT BE LEVIED AND THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SAME. WE UPHOLD HIS ORDER. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ITA NO.2583/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 9 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18.11.11. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICI AL MEMBER AHMEDABAD MAHATA/- 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 3/11/2010. 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER 9/11/2011 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..