Shri Rupesh Jayvadan Kapadia,, Surat v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1),, Surat

ITA 564/AHD/2014 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 56420514 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN ACHPK3119P
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 564/AHD/2014
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant Shri Rupesh Jayvadan Kapadia,, Surat
Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1),, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 20-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 06-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 06-10-2016
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 24-02-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JM & SHRI MANISH BORA D AM. ITA NOS. 564 TO 568/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR: 1999-2000 2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 & 2005-06 RUPESH JAYVADAN KAPADIA 9/464 STORE SHERI WADIFALIA SURAT. VS. ITO WD-3(1) SURAT. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN ACHPK3119P APPELLANT BY SHRI M. J. SHAH AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI JAMES KURIEN SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 06/10/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/10/2016 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE FOR ASST. YEARS 1999-200 0 2000- 01 2002-03 2004-05 & 2005-06 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-IV SURAT OF EVEN DATE 25.11.2013 PAS SED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT) ALL FRAMED ON 30.03.2012 BY ITO WD-3(1) SURAT SUSTAI NING PENALTY OF RS.17 795/- RS.3 53 930/- RS.95 110/- RS.2 37 64 0/- & RS. 2 10 900/- RESPECTIVELY FOR ASST. YEARS 1999-2000 2000-01 2002- 03 2004-05 & 2005-06. AS THE FACTS RELATING TO ALL THE 5 YEARS ARE SIMILAR THEY HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEIN G DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. WE W ILL TAKE THE FACTS ITA NOS.564 TO 568/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 1999-2000 & OTHERS 2 FOR ASST. YEAR 2000-01 AS A LEADING CASE TO ADJUDIC ATE THESE FIVE APPEALS. 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APP EAL IN ITA NO.565/AHD/2014 FOR ASST. YEAR 2000-01:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE PENALTY OF RS.3 53 930/- U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT EVEN THOUG H THE RETURN HAS BEEN FILED VOLUNTARY. 2. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACTS THAT THE RETURN HAS BEEN FILED VOLUNTARY BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE U/S.148 OF TH E I.T. ACT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS GROSSLY ERRED FOR NOT CO NSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE INCOME DECLARED VOLUNTARILY WITHOUT TRACED OUT BY T HE A.O. 4. THE A.O. HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE 2 LETTERS HANDED OVER TO A.O. FOR NOT IMPOSING PENALTY TILL THE APPEAL DECISION WAS PENDING BEFORE CIT (A) AHMEDABAD. 5. THE A.O. HAS NET CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED FOR HEARING BEFORE HIM PERSONALLY AND MUTUALLY AGREED T HAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WILL BE KEPT IN ABEYANCE TILL 'ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO CIT (A) -II AHMEDABAD'S ORDER WILL BE PASSED. THE APPEAL EFFECT ORDER RECE IVED AFTER THE PENALTY LEVIED ORDER AS WELL AS THE DECISION ORDER I.E. ON 08/02/2 014. 6. THE A.O. HAS NOT ISSUED 'ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO CIT (A)-II AHMEDABAD'S ORDER' AND DID NOT GIVE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OR DID NOT ISSU E NOTICE TO GIVE REASONS FOR NOT LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S.271(1} (C) OF THE A CT. AND PASSED ORDER ON THE LAST DATE I.E. ON 30/03/2012. 7. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS)-IV SURAT ALLOWED THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL NO. CAS/IV/II/45/12-13 VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 27/05 /2013 OF THE ASST. YEAR 2003- 04 AGAINST THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1}(C) OF THE ACT OF RS.1 19 590/- WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT (APPEALS) SURAT A T THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 8. THE RELIEF AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT MAY KINDL Y BE ALLOWED IN TOTO. 9. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD TO ALTER AND TO AME ND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE APPEAL. ITA NOS.564 TO 568/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 1999-2000 & OTHERS 3 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ART SILK GREY CLOTH. HE FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 24 .07.2001 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.96 887/-. THEREAFTER ASSESSEE VO LUNTARILY FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 18.01.2006 SHOWING TOTA L INCOME AT RS.11 69 390/- WHICH INCLUDED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.10 72 504/- VOLUNTARILY OFFERED ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS INVESTMENTS AND PERSONAL EXPENSES. THEREAFTER NOTIC E U/S 148 OF THE ACT DATED 24.03.2006 WAS ISSUED AND AFTER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.50 000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.12 19 391/-. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIA TED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. QUANTUM APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ADDIT ION WAS DISMISSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.50 000/- WHICH WAS FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE CO-O RDINATE BENCH VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.3061/AHD/2010. 4. SUBSEQUENTLY PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED ON 30.02.2 012 IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.3 70 430/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.11 22 504/- (ADDITIONAL INCO ME OFFERED IN REVISED RETURN AT RS.10 72 504/- + ADDITION OF RS.5 0 000/- U/S 68). 5. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL AGAINST THE IM PUGNED PENALTY ORDER BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE ADDITIO N OF RS.50 000/- AND SUSTAINED THE PENALTY ON RS.3 53 930/- ON THE ADDIT IONAL INCOME OFFERED IN THE REVISED RETURN AT RS.10 72 504/-. ITA NOS.564 TO 568/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 1999-2000 & OTHERS 4 6. ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL FACTS EXISTING F OR 6 ASST. YEARS INCLUDING THE YEARS UNDER REFERENCE OUT OF WHICH FO R ASST. YEAR 2003- 04 PENALTY HAS BEEN DELETED BY LD. CIT(A). LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ADDIT IONAL INCOME WAS OFFERED DUE TO DETECTION DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H PROCEEDINGS U/S 132 OF THE ACT IS BASELESS AS NO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC.153C OF THE ACT HAS EVER BEEN INITIATED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE . FURTHER PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED IN OR DER TO REGULARIZE THE REVISED RETURN FILED ON 18.01.2006. LD AR REFERRED AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH MUMBAI IN THE CAS E OF RAVI SUD VS. ACIT (2015) 39 ITR (T) 356 WHEREIN SIMILAR FACT S HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. LD. AR ALSO ARGUED ON ANOTHER LIMB BY SUBMITTING THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 274 OF THE ACT WAS BAD IN LAW AS HE DID NOT SPE CIFY AS TO WHETHER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. IN SUCH SITUATION PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN SUSTAINED AS HELD BY HON. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS(2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM.241 (KARNATAK A) WHICH HAS BEEN FURTHER UPHELD BY HON. APEX COURT IN (2016 ) 73 TAXMANN.COM 248 (SC) AS THERE BEING NO SUBSTANTIAL LAW FOR DETERMINATION AND THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME WA S OFFERED BY ITA NOS.564 TO 568/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 1999-2000 & OTHERS 5 ASSESSEE ONLY BECAUSE THE SAME WAS DETECTED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF SOME OTHER ASSESS EE. ALSO REVISED RETURN WAS FILED BEYOND THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT. T HEREFORE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ON THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED IN THE REVISED RETURN AT RS.10 72 504/-. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THROUGH THE JUDGMENTS AND DECISION RE FERRED AND RELIED ON BY LD. AR. SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE TH ROUGH THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING PENA LTY OF RS.3 53 930/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 24.07.2001 SHOWING INCOME OF RS.96 887/-. THEREAFTER ON 18.1.2006 A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FURNISHED SHOWING INCOME OF RS.11 59 390/- AFTER OFFERING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INCLUDING INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS PERSONAL EXPENSES ETC. AT RS.10 72 504/- WHICH WERE NOT SHOW N IN REGULAR INCOME TAX RETURN BUT VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED IN REVI SED RETURN AFTER THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF SOME OTHER ASSESSEE. WE OBSER VE THAT NO DETAIL OF THE PERSON(S) SEARCHED IS AVAILABLE IN TH E RECORD PLACED BEFORE US INCLUDING THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES . REVISED RETURN WAS TREATED AS INVALID AS THE SAME WAS FILED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF STATUTORY TIME LIMIT FOR FILING REVISED RETURN FOR ASST. YEAR 2000-01. THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO REGULARIZE THE RETURN. THE ISSUE OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT IS ONLY IN RELATION TO PENALTY IMPOSED ON ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED AT RS.10 72 504/-. ITA NOS.564 TO 568/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 1999-2000 & OTHERS 6 10. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR FACTS WERE BEFORE THE CO-O RDINATE BENCH MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF RAVI SUD VS. ACIT (SUPRA) WHE REIN RETURN WAS FURNISHED ON 21 ST DECEMBER 1998 SHOWING INCOME OF RS.1 69 900/- FOLLOWED BY REVISED RETURN ON MAY 30 2003 DECLARING ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.7 50 000/- AND THE REVISED RETURN SO F ILED WAS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON JULY 30 2004 IN RESPONSE TO WHICH ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVISED RETURN MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FI LED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED ON THE ADDITIONAL INCOME. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NOTICED THAT A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER ASSESSEE M/S R. K. OVERSEAS AMRITSAR OF W HICH THE ASSESSEE WAS THE PARTNER. CO-ORDINATE BENCH ADJUDIC ATED THE ISSUE OF PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE AND DELETED THE SAME BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE ALS O GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCO ME WAS DETECTED DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THOUGH A SEARCH ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMISES OF SHRI VIVEK KAPOOR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SAID CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WAS OPERATING BOGUS FIRMS HOWEVER NO P ROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE EITHER UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT O R UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT PURSUANT TO THE SAID SEARCH ACTION AGAINST THE SAID CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF FILED A REVISED RETURN DECLARING AN ADDITIO NAL INCOME WHICH WAS CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS SHARE OF PROFIT FROM THE FIRM M/S. R.K. OVERSEAS. THE REASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147(1) WAS DONE IN THIS CASE SUBSEQUENT TO TTE FILING OF THE REVISED RETURN SO T HAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE VALIDLY ASSESSED AS THE REVISED RET URN WAS INVALID BEING TIME BARRED. THE PRESENT IS NOT A CASE WHERE ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCO ME WAS DETECTED EITHER DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR PURSUANT TO ANY ACTION OF REASSESSMENT EITHER UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT OR UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HAS SUO MOTU OFFERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME AND THE SAME WAS NOT DETECTED DURING ANY COURSE OF ACTION BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AGAINST THE ASSES SEE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT ITA NOS.564 TO 568/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 1999-2000 & OTHERS 7 CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A CASE WHERE ANY CONCEALMENT O F INCOME IS DETECTED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE INVITING PENALTY ACTION UNDER SECTION 271( L)(C) OF THE ACT. HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE A SSESSEE SO FAR AS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 ARE CONCERNED. THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE WERE CARRIED OUT JUST TO V ALIDATE THE INVALID REVISED RETURN AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ANY DETECTION OF ESCAPEMENT OF IN COME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND IT AS A CASE FIT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C). THE PENALTY SO LEVIED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS THEREFORE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. I.T.A. NOS. 94 AND95/MUM/2012FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1 999-2000 AND 2000-01 ANDL.T.A. NOS. 96 TO 98/MUM/2012FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2000-01 5. SINCE THE FACTS OF THESE APPEALS ARE ALSO IDENTI CAL AND IN VIEW OF OUR OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE ALL THE ABOVE TITLED APPEALS ARE ALSO H EREBY ALLOWED AND THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT IS HEREBY ORDERE D TO BE DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE'S HEREBY ALLOWED. 11. ON ANALYZING THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US W E FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SQUARELY SIMILARLY TO THOSE ADJUDICATED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF RAV I SUD VS. ACIT (SUPRA). AS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A REVISED RETURN AFTER THE LAPSE OF LIMITATION PERIOD AND IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED FOR TREATING THE REVISED RET URN FILED ON 18/1/2006 AS RETURN FILED IN COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE BEFORE US ALSO THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SOME OTHER ASSESSEE. HOWEVER NO PROCEEDINGS WERE I NITIATED U/S 153 OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE RES PECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH MUMBAI IN TH E ABOVE REFERRED CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS WERE CARRIED OUT JUST TO VALIDATE THE REVISED RETURN AND THERE WAS NO DETECTION OF CONCEALED INCOME BY THE ASSESSING AUTH ORITY AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE. ITA NOS.564 TO 568/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 1999-2000 & OTHERS 8 ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.3 53 930/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THE GROU ND OF ASSESSEE. 12. OTHER GROUNDS ARE OF GENERAL NATURE WHICH NEED NO ADJUDICATION. 13. NOW WE TAKE REMAINING FOUR APPEALS IN ITA NOS.5 64/AHD/2014 566/AHD/2014 567/AHD/2014 & 568/AHD/2014. IN ALL T HESE APPEALS SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE I MPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR ASST. YEAR 2000-01 AS ADJUDICATED ABOVE BY US IN ITA NO.5 65/AHD/2014 WHEREIN WE HAVE DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. APPLYING THE SAME DECISION WE DELETE THE PENA LTIES U/S 271(1)(C) FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS IMPOSED AT RS. RS. 17 795/- RS.95 110/- RS.2 37 640/- & RS. 2 10 900/- FOR AS ST. YEARS 1999- 2000 2002-03 2004-05 & 2005-06 AND ALLOW THE GRO UNDS OF ASSESSEE. 14. OTHER GROUNDS ARE OF GENERAL NATURE WHICH NEED NO ADJUDICATION. ITA NOS.564 TO 568/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 1999-2000 & OTHERS 9 IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH OCTOBER 2016 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 20/10/2016 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 18/10/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 19/10/2016 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 20/10/16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: