ASSISTANT COMMISSONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THERMAX LTD., PUNE

PER R.S. SYAL, V.P.: These two cross appeals – one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue arise out of the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 13.01.2014 in relation to the assessment year 2006-07.

2 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

confirmation of addition of Rs.45,18,200/- on account of

commission paid to Nischal Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. (NCS) and

Rs.31,62,142/-, being 10% of the remaining domestic commission.

The Department has also raised corresponding ground no.1 against

relief allowed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue.

Intelligence Unit of India informed the Directorate of Investigation,

Mumbai that it observed some high value cash transactions in the

bank accounts of M/s. Nupur Management and Consultancy Pvt.

Ltd., which were maintained with ICICI Bank and ABN-Amro

Bank at Mumbai. On the basis of this information, the Directorate

of Investigation, Mumbai conducted survey u/s.133A of the

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) on Nupur

Management and Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. During the course of such

survey, it turned out that two persons, namely, Sh. Dinanath Yadav

and Sh. Pradeep Prajapati, shown as directors of the company, were

residing in a chawl. When their statements were recorded, they

deposed that they were being paid Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- per

month by one Chartered Accountant, Sh. Sandeep Sitlani, for their

signing the documents and cheques. Thereafter, a search was

3 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

conducted at the residential and office premises of Sh. Sandeep

Sitlani u/s.132 of the Act in which it was found that Sh. Sandeep

Sitlani was controlling a hawala racket that was run through 26

companies tabulated on page 4 of the assessment order, including

NCS to whom the. These companies with the same two directors,

namely, Sh. Dinanath Yadav and Sh. Pradeep Prajapati referred to

hereinabove, were having 54 bank accounts. The assessee had

allegedly paid on 05-12-2005 commission of Rs.17,63,200/- to

NCS, which is one of such 26 companies. M/s.Thermax Babcock &

Wilcox Ltd., which got amalgamated with the assessee company on

01-04-2005, had also allegedly paid commission of Rs.27,55,000/-

to NCS on 03-07-2005. When the bill of Rs.27,55,000/- raised by

NCS was verified by the Department, it came to light that the same

was signed by one Sh. C.A. Umredkar as director of the company,

who was never a director of such company. Thus, this bill was

found to be bogus. Some letters of M/s. Thermax Ltd. were found

in the premises of NCS. Though such letters were found from the

premises of NCS, but those were addressed to the proprietor of

NCS. The so called directors of NCS admitted on oath that they did

not know anything about the business being carried out by this

company. Similarly, Sh.Sandeep Sitlani admitted on oath that he

4 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

had floated all these companies on paper and was issuing

accommodation entries to various companies including M/s.

Thermax Ltd. During the course of search action, it transpired that

NCS was not having any staff or other infrastructure and hence it

was not in a position to render any service to the assessee. The

Directorate of Investigation issued summons u/s.131(1) to M/s.

Thermax Ltd. calling the details of payment made by it as

commission to NCS. The assessee produced only hand-written

statement. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the

AO requested the assessee to submit confirmation letter from NCS,

which it failed to do. Instead, the assessee adopted a hostile attitude

and did not extend co-operation to the AO. The assessee was again

called upon to give the name and designation of the officials who

had signed the cheques for making payment to NCS and the details

of cheque nos. etc. In reply, the assessee simply stated that it had

used the expert services of NCS but no concrete evidence was

furnished. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed commission of

Rs.45,18,200/- (Rs.27,55,000 + Rs.11,63,200) which was allegedly

paid to NCS. Out of the remaining amount of commission at

Rs.8.81 crore, the AO disallowed 30% as the assessee neither

produced the books of account nor substantiate the payment. This

5 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

resulted in total disallowance of commission at Rs.3.09 crore and

odd. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in respect of alleged

commission paid to NCS. From the 30% disallowance of the

remaining commission, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition at

10%. Both the sides are in appeal on their respective stands.

to record the non co-operative attitude adopted by the assessee

during the course of assessment proceedings. It can be seen from the

order sheet of the AO, which has been marked as Annexure-B, that

on 26-10-2009, being the first effective date of hearing after the

receipt of order of the Transfer Pricing Officer, the assessee did not

produce the books of account. Only part of the information was

furnished. The case was adjourned to 13-11-2009. On that date

again, the assessee attended but without the books of account and

bills of expenses. The information called for by the AO was given

in a format different from that requested by the AO. Sh. Sanjay

Bhave, Manager Taxation and Sh. Avinash Ambe appeared on

behalf of the assessee before the AO on 13-11-2009 and stated that

because of huge number of purchase and sales bills and closing

stock, the quantitative details could not be prepared as was asked for

in the questionnaire. The case was adjourned. Again on

6 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

25-11-2009, the assessee did not produce books of account and

bills. The case was again adjourned to 30-11-2009 on which date

again no books of account and bills were produced. Taking into

consideration such non-cooperative attitude of the assessee and left

with no option, the AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.

144 of the Act. When the matter was carried before the ld. CIT(A),

the ld. first appellate authority firstly recorded in para 5.9 of the

impugned order that the assessee did not comply with all the terms

of the notices issued u/s.142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. He, however,

then held that: “The AO should have accepted the offer made by the

appellant to produce before him books of account on a selective

basis and, if necessary, he could have extended his requirements if

he was not happy with the sample produced by the appellant”. He,

therefore, did not approve the approach adopted by the AO.

CIT(A) is totally out of place. It is the AO who has to make the

assessment. He only knows what is required and what is not

required for his examination. Once the AO makes a request for

production of books of account and the details for enabling him to

complete the assessment, it becomes obligatory on the part of the

assessee to produce such books of account and the details as called

7 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

for. The assessee cannot dictate the AO of the manner in which the

assessment should be made. It is the sole prerogative of the AO to

go ahead with the assessment in the way he wants so long as his

action is within the statutory mandate. Even otherwise, examination

of books of account is elementary for making an assessment. The

ld. CIT(A), in our considered opinion, went completely off the mark

in accepting the assessee’s contention that the AO should have

restricted himself to the limited details as furnished by it or not

insisted on examination of the full set of books of account. We,

therefore, vacate such finding recorded in the impugned order.

recorded above clearly deciphers that the assessee claimed to have

paid commission of Rs.45,18,200/- to NCS. As against that, the

Departmental enquiry including survey on NCS and search on Sh.

Sandeep Sitlani divulged that NCS along with other 25 companies

was controlled by Sh. Sandeep Sitlani, CA, who was running such

companies only for hawala racket providing accommodation entries.

When the AO required the assessee to produce the books of account

so that he may verify the correctness of the transactions including

the alleged payment of commission, the assessee turned away and

did not produce the same despite repeated requests.

8 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

Tribunal is that the AO failed to provide opportunity of cross

examination and confront the assessee with the statement of Sh.

Sandeep Sitlani etc. who had floated NCS along with other 25

companies for alleged hawala transactions. The ld. AR put forth

that in the absence of the AO following the principles of natural

justice, the addition was liable to be deleted. In support of such a

contention, he relied on the judgment dated 02-09-2015 of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries

Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II (2015) 62

taxmann.com 3 (SC) and certain other decisions.

placed at page 1 onwards of the paper book. The factual matrix of

that case rendered in the content of Central Excise is that some of

the products manufactured were sold to dealers against which the

assessee filed declaration showing the particulars of the goods at

which those were sold ex-factory. The Revenue found that there

was price difference between the goods sold at ex-factory and

delivery basis in comparison to the goods which were sold to the

buyers from their depots. Investigation was carried out. Statements

of two buyers were recorded. The assessee was called upon to

9 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

explain as to why the price at which the goods were sold to the

customers from the depots may not be the basis for determining the

value for the purpose of Excise duty. It was submitted that on the

same ground proceedings were taken earlier which resulted in

favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal. The assessee

also questioned the correctness of the two witnesses and demanded

right to cross-examine them. The adjudicating authority passed the

order confirming the demand in the show cause notice. The

Tribunal rejected the assessee’s ground of not allowing cross-

examination. When the matter finally came up before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, it observed that not allowing cross-examination of

the witnesses, whose statements were the basis of the order, was a

serious flaw, which made the order nullity. In reaching this

conclusion, the Hon’ble Court observed that on an earlier occasion

also when the matter came before this Court, the matter was sent

back to the Tribunal. From the above factual panorama of Andaman

Timber Industries (supra), it is clear that it was a second round of

proceedings in which the assessee was repeatedly denied

opportunity of cross-examination. Further, the assessee specifically

requested the adjudicating authority to allow cross-examination,

which was denied. It was under such circumstances that the

10 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Central

Excise Adjudicating authority was null and void.

firstly, we are in the first round of the proceedings and not the

second round. Secondly, the assessee in the instant case never

requested the AO to confront it with the witnesses or allow cross

examination of the witnesses who had deposed against the assessee.

What to talk of seeking cross examination, the assessee chose to

adopt a non-cooperative attitude and did not produce the books of

account even for once despite the AO repeatedly requiring it to

produce the same. Under such circumstances, it is clear that the

ratio decidendi in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) is

not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

(2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC) through the judgment rendered by three

Hon’ble Judges and that too in the context of Income-tax, as against

the judgment rendered in the case of Andaman Timber Industries

(supra) delivered by two Hon’ble Judges in the context of Central

Excise, was confronted with a situation in which the Hon’ble High

Court set-aside the order of assessment on the ground that no

11 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

opportunity of cross-examination was granted. Overturning the

view of the Hon’ble High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held

that: “At the highest the High Court should have directed the AO to

grant an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the concerned

witness”. As a consequence of that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set-

aside the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court by holding that : `In

the circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court should

not have quashed the assessment proceedings vide impugned order’

and accordingly remitted the matter to lower authorities for disposal

on merits.

(2013) 359 ITR 129 (Delhi), following M. Pirai Choodi (supra), has

restored the matter in the absence of the AO granting opportunity to

cross-examine the witnesses, which formed the basis for addition.

(2018) 404 ITR 433 (Madras) considered both the judgments of

Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely, Andaman Timber Industries

(supra) and M. Pirai Choodi (supra) and decided similar issue

raised through question no.2 in favour of the Revenue by holding

that the Tribunal was not right in deleting additions made in the

12 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

block assessment on the ground that no opportunity to cross-

examine was granted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at

any time.

addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.)

dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017

of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in

I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court

held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material

gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee

with an opportunity to rebut, would not be void ab initio, and could

be rectified through an order of remand.

C.M.No.10774/2019, the assessee specifically raised before the

Hon’ble Delhi High Court the issue of denial of opportunity of cross

examination. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide judgment dated

08-03-2019 held that the addition was valid.

(HP), the assessee relying on Andaman Timber Industries (supra),

13 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

pleaded for quashing of the order for non granting of opportunity of

cross-examination. The Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court did

not accept such a plea of the assessee and affirmed the order of the

Tribunal upholding the order passed u/s 263 of the Act.

Promotions P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.1489 of 2013, vide its

judgment dated 13-07-2015, a copy placed on record by the ld. AR,

considered a situation in which addition was made without granting

opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the deponents who had

deposed against the assessee. The Tribunal held that no cross-

examination was called for in the facts as were obtaining in the case.

The Hon’ble High Court, noting that there was a breach of

principles of natural justice, held that : `In view of the above, we set

aside the order of the Tribunal and restore the issue to the

Assessing Officer for fresh disposal after following the principles of

natural justice.’

AO relied on the statements of certain persons recorded during the

course of survey and search on M/s. Nupur Management and

Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Sandeep Sitlani, for making the

14 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

addition of Rs.45,18,200/-, for which cross-examination was not

afforded to the assessee. It is not a case that the AO lacked

jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment. It is further not a case

that the AO made the addition on his whims and fancies and without

there being any material to substantiate the same. Per contra, it is a

case of making the addition on the basis of relevant evidence but

simply using the same without granting opportunity to cross

examine. Thus it is an irregularity coming in the otherwise valid and

lawful proceedings. Such an irregularity in not allowing an

opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who deposed against the

assessee, can be regularized if the assessment proceedings are

brought back to the stage at which the irregularity stepped it. We,

therefore, set aside the impugned order to this extent and remit the

matter to the file of the AO with a direction to first confront the

assessee with the adverse material and allow an opportunity to cross

examine, if desired, before deciding the issue on merits.

commission is concerned, it is seen that the AO disallowed 30% of

the remaining commission of Rs.8.81 crore. The ld. CIT(A)

reduced such disallowance to 10%. Against the said finding, both

the sides have come up in appeal before the Tribunal.

15 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

material on record, it is observed from the factual narration made

above that the assessee adopted a non co-operative attitude and did

not produce books of account and other relevant bills before the

AO. Since the AO was debarred from examining the details of

commission along with necessary details, he could not have made a

specific disallowance for want of evidence or genuineness etc. It is

in such backdrop of the facts that he made disallowance on ad hoc

basis. The ld. CIT(A), too, reduced the disallowance to 10% without

giving any reasons. We have already vacated the finding of the ld.

CIT(A) in holding that the AO should have acceded to the

assessee’s request for going ahead with partial books and truncated

details. In view of the fact that the AO was not allowed access to the

books of account and other relevant bills, we set-aside the impugned

order and remit the matter to the file of AO for fresh consideration

of the issue and then decide it after allowing reasonable opportunity

of hearing to the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee

as well as the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

confirmation of disallowance of depreciation at 80% in respect of

16 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

certain items of plant and machinery and instead allowing

depreciation @ 25%.

relevant material on record, it is found as an admitted position that

similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the

Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding

assessment year 2005-06 vide order dated 31-07-2019 in ITA No.

1033 & 1289/PUN/2013. Both the sides are in agreement that the

facts and circumstances of this ground are mutatis mutandis similar

to those of the preceding year. Respectfully following the

precedent, we decide this issue in the assessee’s favour. This ground

is allowed.

deduction of Rs.70,82,836/- on account of prior period expenses.

Here again, both the sides are in agreement that the facts and

circumstances of this ground are similar to the Ground No.2 for the

A.Y. 2005-06, for which the Tribunal has decided such issue

against the assessee. Following the same view, we dismiss this

ground of the appeal.

17 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

deduction on account of liquidated damages. Ground Nos. 4 and 5

of the Departmental appeal are also on the same issue. Both the

sides are in agreement that the Tribunal has decided similar issue in

favour of the assessee in its order for A.Y. 2005-06. In deciding

this issue so, the Tribunal relied on its earlier orders as well.

Following the same, we allow the assessee’s ground and dismiss the

Revenue grounds.

confirmation of disallowance of Rs.5.36 crore on account of legal

expenses paid to Mckinsey & Company. Ground Nos.6 (a) and 6(b)

of the Revenue’s appeal are against the deletion of addition on

account of fees paid to Mckinsey & Company. Here again, both the

sides agree that similar issue has been decided in the assessee’s

favour by the Tribunal in its order for A.Y. 2005-06. We, therefore,

decide this issue in favour of the assessee. The ground of the

assessee is allowed and those of the Revenue are dismissed.

confirmation of addition amounting to R.2,21,000/- towards Freight

on the method of revenue recognition. Ground No.7 of the

18 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

Revenue’s appeal is against the deletion of addition on account of

income recognition from the contract activity. Here again, both the

sides agree that similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the

assessee’s favour in its own case for the A.Y. 2005-06. Relevant

discussion has been made in para 8.1 pages 9-12 of the order.

Respectfully following the precedent, we decide this issue in

assessee’s favour. The ground of the assessee is allowed and that of

the Revenue is dismissed.

Revenue’s appeal are against the sustenance of disallowance

towards the provision for warranty to the extent of 20%. Here

again, a common submission has been made that the Tribunal has

decided similar issue in the assessee’s favour for the A.Y. 2005-06,

in which it followed its earlier orders. Relevant discussion has been

made in para 12 pages 19 and 20 of the Tribunal order.

Respectfully following the precedent, we decide this issue in

assessee’s favour. The assessee’s ground is allowed and

Departmental ground is dismissed.

of disallowance under the head Repairs to machinery to the tune of

19 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

Rs.5,94,500/-. Ground No. 9 of the assessee’s appeal is against the

sustenance of disallowance under the head Repairs to building to the

extent of Rs.11,66,761/-.

that the assessee could not produce any document to substantiate

such claim. The ld. AR fairly conceded that no such document was

still available with the assessee. In the absence of any

substantiation of the claim of deduction for such expenses, we

uphold the impugned order. Thus, the two grounds stand dismissed.

deduction on account of bad debts. The facts apropos this issue are

that the assessee claimed deduction for bad debts to the tune of

Rs.9,94,36,177/-. The AO did not allow such claim as in his

opinion the assessee could not prove that the debts had become bad.

The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition.

material on record, it is found as an admitted position that the

assessee, in fact, wrote off the amount of bad debts in its books of

account. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010)

323 ITR 397 (SC) has held that after 01-04-1989, the assessee is not

20 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

required to establish that the debt had became bad in the previous

year. It was further held that the deduction has to be allowed on a

mere write off. Since in the instant case, admittedly the assessee

wrote off the amount in its books of account and it is not the case of

the Revenue that the conditions stipulated u/s.36(2) were not

satisfied, we uphold the impugned order in deleting the addition.

of disallowance on account of unpaid amount of provision of Short

term incentive plan.

issue are similar to Ground No.4 of the Revenue’s appeal for the

A.Y. 2005-06, in which this issue has been decided by the Tribunal

in favour of the assessee vide its order dated 24-05-2019 in ITA

No.1765 & 1803/PUN/2012. Respectfully following the precedent,

we uphold the impugned order on this score.

deletion of addition of Rs.1,18,69,699/- which was made by the AO

by disallowing 5% of balance Legal and Professional charges to the

tune of Rs.23.73 crore. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition.

21 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

the preceding years have been deleted by the Tribunal for want of

the AO not specifically pointing out any defect in the detail of

expenses. The factual position in the year under consideration is

different inasmuch as the assessee turned hostile and went to the

extent of not producing the books of account etc. before the AO

despite repeated reminders, thereby depriving the latter from

examining the details. In line with our decision on restoring the

issue of commission for a fresh decision , which was disallowed by

the AO at 30% and reduced to 10% by the ld. CIT(A), we set aside

the impugned order on this score and send the matter back to the

AO with a direction to the assessee to produce the books of account

and other relevant evidence etc. as directed by the AO, who, in turn,

will specifically point out defects in the books of account and

relevant evidence qua this expense before making any disallowance.

No ad hoc addition should be made.

deletion of disallowance of Rs.15,43,141/-. The AO, relying on the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab

Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 225 ITR

792 (SC), held that the stamp expenses were capital in nature. The

22 ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

ld. CIT(A) examined the details of stamp expenses and found that

the same had no relation with the share capital of the company. He,

therefore, deleted the addition.

material on record, it is found as an admitted position that the stamp

expenses in question do not relate to increase in the authorised share

capital of the company and hence the judgment in the case of

Punjab Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (supra) is not

attracted to the facts of the instant case. Since such expenses are in

relation to conducting business of the company, we uphold the

impugned order in deleting the disallowance.

of disallowance made on account of Public Relation expenses,

Miscellaneous expenses, Vehicle expenses, Telephone expenses,

Miscellaneous Foreign Travel expenses, Staff Welfare and Freight

expenses. The AO made such disallowances for want of the

necessary details, which came to be deleted in the first appeal.

ground are similar to ground for commission and legal expenses

discussed above, which we have restored to the AO for a fresh

ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

consideration and decision after examining the books of account

and relevant documents. Adopting the same reasoning, we set aside

the impugned order and send the matter to the AO for deciding it

afresh. Needless to say, the assessee will produce the books of

account and the relevant details, as called for by the AO.

that of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th September, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 13th September, 2019 सतीश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Nashik 4. The CCIT, Nashik िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “बी” / 5. DR ‘B’, ITAT, Pune; 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

ITA Nos.509 & 714/PUN/2014 Thermax Ltd.,

Date 1. Draft dictated on 11-09-2019 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 13-09-2019 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed JM before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved JM by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *