UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI v. DCIT SP RG 32,

ITA 4696/MUM/2010 | 1991-1992
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 469619914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACU0564G
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4696/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT SP RG 32,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Assessment Year 1991-1992
Appeal Filed On 07-06-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARA GHAVAN (JM) ITA NO.4694/MUM/2010 A.Y.1988-89 ITA NO.4695/MUM/2010 A.Y.1990-91 ITA NO.4696/MUM/2010 A.Y.1991-92 ITA NO.4697/MUM/2010 A.Y.1993-94 ITA NO.4698/MUM/2010 A.Y.1994-95 ITA NO.4699/MUM/2010 A.Y.1995-96 ITA NO.4700/MUM/2010 A.Y.1996-97 ITA NO.4701/MUM/2010 A.Y.1997-98 THE UNION BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT 239 VIDHAN BHAWAN MARG NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI-400 021 PAN-AAACU 0564G VS. THE ACIT LTU MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI C NARESH DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI SUBACHAN RAM DATE OF HEARING : 28.6.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29 TH JULY 2011 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-LTU DT. 4.3.2010. AS THESE APPEALS INVOLVE COMMON ISSUE THE SAME HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BE ING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE THAT WHILE GI VING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GRANT THE A CTUAL INTEREST DUE TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 244A ACCORDI NG TO THE ASSESSEE. AS PER UNION BANK OF INDIA 2 PROVISIONS OF SEC. 244A WHERE REFUND OF ANY AMOUNT BECOMES DUE TO ASSESSEE HE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO INTEREST AT VARYING RATES F ROM THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR/DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAX TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE REFUND IS GRANTED. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN INTEREST HAS ARISEN ON ACCOUNT OF THE AO NOT GRANTING INTEREST ON ANY AMOUNT DUE TO THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING INTER EST DUE DATE. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE GRANTED INTERES T ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT IS PRINCIPAL OR INTEREST. THE AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SANDVI K ASIA LTD. VS CIT AND OTHERS 280 ITR 643 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSES SEE IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE INTEREST DUE ALSO. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1) DCIT VS STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE (ITA NO. 13 14 25( COCH)/2002 1187 1189 1191(COCH)/2004 FOR A.YRS 1989-90 1990-9 1 1995-96 1991-92 1997-98 & 2001-02 DT. 21.7.2006. 2) DCIT VS BHARAT OVERSEAS BANK LTD. (ITA 2347 & 48/MD S/2005 A.Y. 1996-97 & 1997-98 DT. 29.12.2006 3) DCIT VS INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK LTD. (ITA 753 & 754/MD S/2008 FOR A.YRS 1990-91 & 92-93 DT. 15.1.2009) 4) CIT VS HEG LTD. (310 ITR 341 MP) 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSE L AND CASE CITED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE INTEREST AS PER SEC. 244A FROM 1 ST OF APRIL TILL THE DATE OF GRANTING OF REFUND AND A S REGARDS INTEREST ON INTEREST IT IS SEEN THAT THIS ASSESSMEN T HAS BEEN COMPLETED WITH REGARD TO DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN ITS ORDER NO. 5587/BOM/95 AND ALSO ORDER NO. 5495/BOM/2000 DT . 25.7.2006 THEREFORE THERE IS NO DELAY ON THE PART OF THE DEP ARTMENT IN GIVING THE REFUND WHICH HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AS PER ORDER D T. 14.2.2007 BECAUSE IN THIS CASE THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED CONSEQUENT TO DIRECTION OF HONBLE ITAT BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 1 43(2) ON 30.3.2007 AND COMPLETED ON 14.12.2007. HENCE IT CA NNOT BE SAID UNION BANK OF INDIA 3 THAT THERE IS ANY UNDUE DELAY OR UNNECESSARY TIME T AKEN ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT TO COMPLETE THE PROVISIONS A ND THIS ISSUES BEING DISTINCT ON THE FACTS IS DECIDED ON ITS OWN M ERITS ON THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY T HE LD. COUNSEL RELATE TO A DIFFERENT SITUATION WHERE THERE IS UNDU E DELAY OR TIME TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IN FINALIZING THE PROCEEDIN GS WHICH IS NOT IN THE PRESENT CASE HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ASSESS EE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI C . NARESH REITERATED THE ARGUMENT PLEADED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND S TATED THAT THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA LTD. VS CIT AND OTHERS 280 ITR 643 HAS CLEARLY HELD AS FOLLOWS: ASSESSEE ASKED FOR GRANTING OF INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF INTEREST WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO STATING T HAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT FOR THE SAME. CIT(A) ALSO REJ ECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA LTD (2006-TIOL-07-SC-IT) I S NOT APPLICABLE AS THERE WAS AN INORDINATE DELAY AND THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT HAD TAKEN SERIOUS EXCEPTIONS TO SUCH DELAY. THAT WHENEVER THERE IS A DELAY IN GRANTING REFUND T O THE ASSESSEE THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO PAY COMPENSATION BY WAY OF IN TEREST FOR THE DELAY IN PAYMENT OF AMOUNT LAWFULLY DUE TO THE ASSE SSEE WHICH ARE WITHHELD WRONGLY AND CONTRARY TO LAW; THAT THE SUPREME COURT HELD IN THE SAID CASE THAT E VEN ASSUMING THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSAT ION COMPENSATION FOR DELAY IS REQUIRED TO BE PAID AS TH E ACT ITSELF RECOGNIZES IN PRINCIPLE THE LIABILITY OF THE DEPART MENT TO PAY INTEREST WHEN EXCESS TAX WAS RETAINED AND THE SAME PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO CASES WHERE INTEREST WAS RETAINED; 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI SUBACHA N RAM ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN T HE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA LTD. VS CIT AND OTHERS 280 ITR 643 APPLIES ONLY TO SECTI ON 244 AND NOT SECTION 244A. UNION BANK OF INDIA 4 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AT PARA 8 OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS STATE BANK OF TRAVA NCORE HAVE CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: AS FAR AS THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 244A ARE CONCERNE D THE LEGISLATURE HAS USED THE WORDS WHERE THE REFUND OF ANY AMOUNT BECOMES DUE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER THIS ACT. IT ME ANS THAT REFUND DOES NOT ONLY CONSIST OF TAX REFUNDABLE TO THE AS SESSEE BUT ALSO INTEREST DUE ON THE SAID TAX WHICH HAS BECOME PAY ABLE BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT TO THE ASSESSEE AND W HICH IS NOT PAID AND THERE IS A DELAY IN PAYMENT OF THE SAID INTERES T THAT WILL CONSTITUTE THE REFUND. THE ACT HAS CONFERRED A RIG HT ON THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX WHICH IS REFUNDABLE TO HIM WHICH IS PAID IN EXCESS OF THE DE MAND AND THE STATUTE HAS ALSO PRESCRIBED THE TIME LIMIT FOR PAYM ENT OF THE TAX AS WELL AS INTEREST DUE ON THE SAID TAX. IN OUR OPINI ON THE TERM REFUND USED IN SEC. 244A COMPRISED OF THE ELEMENT OF TAX AND ALSO INTEREST DUE ON THAT PARTICULAR AMOUNT OF TA X WHICH HAS BEEN DELAYED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE CASES OF SANDVIK ASIA LTD (SUPRA) NARENDRA DOSHI (SUPRA) D.J. WORK S (SUPRA) THE OLD SECTIONS 214 243 244 WERE UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE FOR APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN SAID DECISION TO SEC. 244A AS IT IS SUBSTITUTED FOR SECTIONS 214 243 AND 244. AFTER CONSIDERING THE LANGUAGE USED BY THE LEGISLAT URE IN SEC. 244A THE LEGISLATURE HAS ENLARGED THE PROVISION BY GIVIN G CLEAR BENEFITS TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THA T THE PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO THE EARLIER PROVISIONS IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE DELAYED AMOUNT OF TAX REFUNDABLE AND INTEREST DUE THEREON ARE APPLICABLE TO SECTION 244A OF THE ACT. 7. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS. 04 & 05 /MUM/2010 IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AND THE CIT(A) AND T HE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS D ECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF MULTISCREEN MEDIA PVT.LTD. VS. ASST. C.I.T. IN ITA NO. 6602/MUM/2008 FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 ORDER DATED 19.11.2010 FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE UNION BANK OF INDIA 5 SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA LTD. V. C IT 280 ITR 643 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BO TH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSI DERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA LTD (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE I T ACT 1961 AN ASSESSEE IS ENT ITLED TO COMPENSATION BY WAY OF INTEREST FOR THE DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF AMO UNTS LAWFULLY DUE TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE WITHHELD WRONGLY AND CONTRAR Y TO LAW. IN THE SAID DECISION THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS FURTHER HELD INTEREST IS PAYMENT ON THE AMOUNT TO BE REFUNDED U /S 244(1) WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE OR OTHER AUTHORITY SPECIFIED IN SECTION240. THE EXPRESSION AMOUNT IN THE EARLIER PART OF SECTION 244(1A) REFERS NOT ONLY TO THE TAX BUT ALSO TO THE INTEREST; IT IS A NEUTRAL EXPRESSION AND IT CANNOT BE LIMITED TO THE TAX PAID IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS FURTHER HELD THAT EVEN ASSUMING THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION COMPENSATION FOR DELAY IS REQUIRED TO BE PAID AS THE ACT ITSELF RECOGNIZES IN PRINCIPLE THE LIABILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT TO PAY INTEREST WHEN EXCESS TAX WAS RETAINED AND THE SAME PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO CASES WHERE INTEREST WAS RETAINED.. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE DELAY B EING JUSTIFIABLE AND EVEN IF THE REVENUE TAKES AN ERRONEOUS VIEW OF THE LAW THAT CANNOT MEAN THAT THE WITHHOLDING OF MONIES IS JUSTIFIABLE OR NOT WRONGFUL THERE IS NO EXCEPTION TO THE PRINCIPLE FOR AN ALLEGEDLY JUS TIFIABLE WITHHOLDING . CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE A ND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT CITED SUPRA WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST U/S 244A ON DELAYED REFUND OF`RS. 42 15 279 FOR THE PERIOD F ROM SEPT 2004 TO DEC. 2006. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT ON THE OBSER VATIONS MADE BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SAND VIK ASIA LTD (SUPRA) IS AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE AND THE SAID DECISIO N WOULD APPLY TO SUCH EXCEPTIONAL CASES. IN OUR OPINION WHENEVER TH ERE IS A DELAY IN GRANTING REFUND TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SANDVIK ASIA L TD (SUPRA) THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO PAY COMPENSATION BY WAY OF INTERE ST FOR THE DELAY IN PAYMENT OF AMOUNT LAWFULLY DUE TO THE ASSE SSEE WHICH ARE WITHHELD WRONGLY AND CONTRARY TO LAW . 8 IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE SET ASIDE THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PAY INTEREST U/ S 244A TO THE UNION BANK OF INDIA 6 ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 8. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO PAY INTEREST U/S. 244A AS PER LAW. HOWEVER IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ISSUE A RISES WITH RESPECT TO WORKING OUT THE INTEREST U/S. 244A. 9. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE GRAN TED INTEREST ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT IS PRINCIPAL OR INTEREST. FURTHER THE DIFFERENCE IN INTEREST HAS ARISEN ON ACCOUNT OF THE AO NOT GRANTING INTEREST ON ANY AMOUNT DUE TO THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING INTER EST. 10. TO EXPLAIN IF SAY INTEREST HAS BECOME DUE AS P ER CIT(A)S ORDER AND FINALLY THE REFUND WAS GRANTED WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE TRIBUNALS ORDER (ON FURTHER APPEAL). THE REFUND BY LD. CIT(A) IS 50 00 0/- ON WHICH INTEREST DUE WAS RS. 10 000/-. RS. 60 000/- IS REFUNDED TO ASSESSEE . BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER TOTAL REFUND DUE IS RS. 1 LAKHS BECAUSE OF FURTHER RELIEF AND INTEREST DUE IS RS. 15 000/- THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR RS. 1 15 000 RS. 60 000/- I.E. RS. 55 000/- WHEREAS THE DEPARTMENT HAS GIVEN INTEREST ON RS. 1 00 000 RS. 50 000/- I.E. RS. 50 000/- THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMIN G INTEREST ON RS. 55 000/-. 11. THE SHORT ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIG IBLE FOR INTEREST ON RS. 55 000/- OR RS. 50 000/-. IN OUR OPINION ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON RS. 50 000/- ONLY WHICH REPRESENTS REFUND DUE ON ACCOUN T OF TAX AS A RESULT OF RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THIS TAX WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE EARLIER THOUGH THE SAME WAS NOT ACTUALLY PAYABLE AND INTEREST IS REQUI RED TO BE PAID TO COMPENSATE THE ASSESSEE AS HAS BEEN PAID IN THE HYPOTHETICAL E XAMPLE GIVEN ABOVE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5 000/-. THE SAID AMOUNT OF INTERES T HOWEVER BECOMES PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS A RESULT OF TRIBUNALS ORDER AND IF THE SAME IS NOT PAID WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME IT CONSTITUTES AMOUNT OF INTEREST DUE TO THE ASSESSEE BUT NOT PAID AND WITHHELD BY THE DEPARTMENT ON WHICH INTERE ST BECOMES DUE TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER SUCH PRESCRIBED TIME. FOR INST ANCE IN THE EXAMPLE GIVEN UNION BANK OF INDIA 7 ABOVE IF THE INTEREST OF RS. 5 000/- IS NOT PAID T O THE ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME INTEREST ON THIS AMOUNT OF INTEREST WILL BE PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD AFTER SUC H PRESCRIBED TIME TILL THE PAYMENT IS MADE. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY INTEREST ON THE INTEREST AMOUNT OF RS. 5 000/- FOR THE PERIOD P RIOR TO THAT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DISALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM ON THIS ISSUE. 12. WITH RESPECT TO LOSS ON REVALUATION OF INVESTME NTS FOR A.YRS 1988-89 AND 1990-91 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND IS NOT PRESSED AND MAY BE TREATED AS WITHDRAWN AS THE CIT( A) HAS BY SUBSEQUENT RECTIFICATION ORDER ALLOWED THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR. 13. WITH RESPECT TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 201(1A) F OR A.Y. 1990-91 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF ITAT LEVIED INTEREST U/S. 201(1A). THE SAI D INTEREST IS LEVIABLE FOR DELAY IN REMITTANCE OF TDS AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE LEVIED IN AN ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT. THEREFORE WE DELETE INTE REST U/S. 201(1A). 14. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR A.Y. 1990-91 AND THE APPEALS FILED FOR A.Y.S 1988-89 1 991-92 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 AND 1997-98 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF JULY 2011 SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 29 TH JULY 2011 RJ UNION BANK OF INDIA 8 COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR F BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T MUMBAI UNION BANK OF INDIA 9 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 25.07.2011 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 26.07.2011 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR _________ ______ 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______