Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6233 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
12-01-2018
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
30-06-2017
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
24-05-2013
Judgement Text
, MH MHMH MH- -- - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER !# I.T.A. NO.1536/AHD/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ACIT, CIRCLE 7, AHMEDABAD-380 015 # VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS, OFF. SURVEY NO.1042/2/1, NR. ASHAPURI MATA TEMPLE, WAGHESHWAR POLE NA NAKE, CHAKLESHWAR MAHADEV, RAIPUR, AHMEDABAD 380 001 $ # % & # PAN/GIR NO. : AAJFK 0878 R ( !$' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' # RESPONDENT ) !$') # APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. K. SINGH, SR. D.R. ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.V. AGRAWAL, A.R. + ,*-. / DATE OF HEARING 08/01/2018 /012*-. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12/01/2018 3# O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD , VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A) XIV/JT. CIT, R-7/277/2011-12 DATED 19/03/ 2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10 AND FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE: ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - I). THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS.33,91,662 /- EVEN THOUGH AO THROUGH INVESTIGATION, PROVED THAT COMMISSION PAYME NT WAS NOT GENUINE AND ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT COMMISSION AGENTS AND PROVIDED ANY SERVICE FOR WHICH COMMISSION WAS PAID. II). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.22,580/- MADE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. III).ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IV). IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECO RDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN OBSERVATION IN ASSESS MENT ORDER , WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS AN AGENCY PROVIDING FOREX ADV ISORY SERVICES. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBIT ED RS.33,91,662/- AS COMMISSION EXPENSES IN P&L A/C. REGARDING COMMISSIO N EXPENSE VIDE PARA 11 OF NOTICE U/S.142(1) DATED 30.06.2011, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE AS UNDER:- 'NAME AND COMPLETE POSTAL ADDRESS OF PERSONS TO WHO M COMMISSION PAID, RATE OF COMMISSION/BASIS OF COMMIS SION, THEIR COPIES OF ACCOUNTS, DETAILS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THEM, DETAILS OF TDS DEDUCTED AND PAID INTO THE GOVT. A/C, PROOF OF PAYMENT MADE. FILE EVIDENCE ALSO '. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 10.10. 2011 HAS FILED ONLY COPY OF COMMISSION EXP. LEDGER A/C -WHICH IS A S UNDER:- COMMISSION EXP. LEDGER ACCOUNT 1-APRIL-2008 TO 31-MAR-2009 DATE PARTICULARS VCH TYPE VCH NO DEBIT CREDIT 02-06-2008 TO PRAN JAIN INVOICE NO.-JUN/24/2008- 09 JOURNAL 15 1,32,500.00 ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - TO PRAN JAIN INVOICE NO.-JUN/23/2008- 09 JOURNAL 15 1,20,000.00 10-06-2008 TO AMIT RAJKUMAR INVOICE NO.-01/2008-09 JOURNAL 19 25,000.00 24-06-2008 TO JAIMIN V. SHAH JOURNAL 29 85,000.00 09-07-2008 TO PRAN JAIN INVOICE NO.-JUL/31/2008- 09 JOURNAL 37 1,28,700.00 10-07-2008 TO PRAN JAIN INVOICE NO.-JUL/32/2008- 09 JOURNAL 38 1,65,000.00 12-07-2008 TO PRAN JAIN INVOICE NO.-JUL/33/2008- 09 JOURNAL 39 92,400.00 23-07-2008 TO PRAN JAIN INVOICE NO.-JUL/37/2008- 09 JOURNAL 45 1,32,000.00 24-07-2008 TO PRAN JAIN INVOICE NO.-JUL/38/2008- 09 JOURNAL 46 77,500.00 27-07-2008 TO PRAN JAIN INVOICE NO.-JUL/39/2008- 09 JOURNAL 48 1,70,500.00 11-08-2008 TO PRAN JAIN INVOICE NO.-AUG/43/2008- 09 JOURNAL 52 1,55,000.00 13-08-2008 TO NEGA MANAGEMENT SERVICES INVOICE NO.-NS/AUG/08- 09 JOURNAL 55 96,000.00 17-08-2008 TO PRAN JAIN INVOICE NO.-AUG/44/2008- 09 JOURNAL 57 1,32,340.00 21-08-2008 TO AMIT RAJKUMAR INVOICE NO. - 03 /2008 - 09 JOURNAL 58 50,000.00 04-10-2008 TO NEGA MANAGEMENT SERVICES INVOICE NO.-NS/OCT/07/08- 09 JOURNAL 83 95,000.00 01-11-2008 TO M.R. SOMAYAJULU JOURNAL 99 55,741.00 10-11-2008 TO KRISHNA ASSOCIATES JOURNAL 107 59,830.00 15-11-2008 TO PRAN JAIN JOURNAL 110 62,270.00 24-11-2008 TO KRISHNA ASSOCIATES INVOICE NO.17 JOURNAL 114 1,60,000.00 19-12-2008 TO MONIKA JAIN INVOICE NO.DEC/13/2008- 09 JOURNAL 131 4,85,000.00 TO M. LAKSHMI INVOICE NO.JAN/23/2008-09 JOURNAL 132 80,000.00 13-01-2009 TO M. LAKSHMI INVOICE NO.JAN/29/2008 - 09 JOURNAL 151 58,000.00 02 - 02 - 2009 TO UMA FINANCIAL SERVICES JOURNAL 163 4,15,000.00 16-02-2009 TO M. LAKSHMI INVOICE NO.FEB/38/2008- 09 JOURNAL 167 53,606.00 17-02-2009 TO M. LAKSHMI INVOICE NO.JAN/32/2008-09 JOURNAL 169 2,01,275.00 18-02-2008 TO MONIKA JAIN JOURNAL 172 1,05,000.00 ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - INVOICE NO.-FEB/15/2008- 09 33,91,662.00 33,91,662.00 CLOSING BALANCE 33,91,662.00 33,91,662.00 THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE REMAINING DETAILS ON 10.10.2011. THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION O N 14.10.2011 BUT HE DID NOT FILE REQUIRED DETAILS REGARDING COMMISSION. THEREFORE, VIDE NOTE SHEET ENTRY DATED 14.10.2011, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQU IRED TO FILE DETAILS OF PARTIES WITH COMPLETE POSTAL ADDRESS AND COPIES OF BILLS (ONE FOR EACH) ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH COMMISSION PAID TO THE PERSONS (COMMISSION AGENTS) IN THE FOLLOWING FORMAT:- NAME AND ADDRESS AMOUNT REED. BILLS WISE COMMISSION PAID B I LLS WISE RELEVANT TO AMOUNT RECD. RATE OF COMMISSION THE ASSESSES WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO FILE DETAILS WHIC H WAS REQUIRED AS PER PARA 11 OF THE NOTICE U/S.142(1) DATED 30.06 .2011. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED VOUCHERS RELATED TO COMMISSION EXPENSES IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 02.10.2011 (BY ENCLOSING PAGE-114 TO 148). ALL THESE VOUCHERS ARE MADE PART OF THIS ORDER AS ANNEXURE A (1 TO 35). A PERUSAL OF THESE V OUCHERS SHOWS THAT IN THESE VOUCHERS DIFFERENT PARTIES HAVE MENTIONED NAR RATION AS UNDER:- KRISHNA ASSOCIATES, BEING VALUE OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR PROVIDING CLIENT SERVICES RELATED TO INTERNATIONAL BANKING (REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES ). PRAN JAIN, MONIKA JAIN. BEING VALUE OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR SOURCING OF CLIENTS TOWARDS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT. M. R. SOMAYAJULU, AMIT RAJKUMAR, JAYMIN U SHAH. BEING FEES RAISED FOR EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS BUS INESS DEVELOPMENT. M. LAKSHMI. ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 5 - BEING FEES RAISED TOWARDS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, EXP ENDITURE OF RS.80,000/-. UMA FINANCIAL SERVICES. BEING FEES RAISED FOR EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FOR THE MONTH OF NOV-2008, DEC-2008 AND JUN-2009. NEHA MANAGEMENT SERVICES. BEING VALUE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR PROVIDING CLIENT SERVICES RELATED TO INTERNATIONAL BANKING. IT IS ALSO NOTICEABLE IN ALL THESE VOUCHERS THAT IT IS MENTIONED IN THESE VOUCHERS THAT PLEASE ISSUE CHEQUE IN FAVOUR O F INDIVIDUAL PERSON LIKE B SREESHKUMAR, PRAN JAIN, MONIKA JAIN, M. R. S OMAYAJULU, S. UMA BHARTI, M. LAKSHMI, AMIT RAJKUMAR, JAYMIN V SHAH, N EHA SAXENA. A PERUSAL OF THESE VOUCHERS ALSO SHOWS THAT ALL THE SE VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN MADE BY A PARTICULAR PERSONS, ON A PARTIC ULAR COMPUTER AND NOT BY EACH OF THEM. VIDE NOTE SHEET ENTRY DATED 20 .10.2011, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE AS UNDER:- 'THE BILLS REGARDING COMMISSION FOR ACTUAL EXPENDITURE DONE BY THE PERSONS TO WHOM IT HAS BEEN PAID. THEY HAVE CLA IMED AS REIMBURSEMENT. PLEASE FILE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES FOR THE SAME. ' THEREAFTER, VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 03.11.201 1 WHICH WAS SUBMITTED ON 11.11.2011, THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRM ATION FROM 6 PARTIES, MENTIONED BELOW, TO WHOM COMMISSION PAID HAS BEEN S HOWN:- I. AMIT RAJKUMAR II. NEHA MANAGEMENT SERVICES III. PRAN JAIN IV, MONIKA JAIN V. KRISHNA ASSOCIATES VI. UMA FINANCIAL SERVICES. THE CONFIRMATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO MADE PART OF THIS ORDER AS ANNEXURE 'B'. A PERUSAL OF THESE CONF IRMATIONS SHOWS THAT THE SIGNATURE OF THE SAID PERSONS IN THE CONFIRMATI ON AND SIGNATURE OF ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 6 - THE SAME PERSON IN VOUCHER ARE NOT SAME. THIS SHOWS THAT THE PERSON WHO HAS GIVEN VOUCHERS AND THE PERSON WHO HAS GIVEN CONFIRMATIONS ARE DIFFERENT FOR EACH OF THE ABOVE. SINCE THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT SUBMIT SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AS REQUIRED VIDE NOTE SHEET EN TRY DATED 11.11.2011, THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN REQUIRED TO EXPL AIN AS UNDER:- 'REGARDING COMMISSION PAID, IT WAS REQUIRED TO FILE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AS THE SAME HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS REIMBURSE MENT OF EXPENSES BY THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS TO WHOM SHOWN TO HAVE PAID AS COMMISSION. PLEASE ALSO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE SA ME MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCES/SUPPORTING.' THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE/PRODUCE REQUIRED DETAILS IN SUBMISSION DATED 16.11.2011. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN REQ UIRED TO FILE /PRODUCE THE SAME AND WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE COMMISSION AGENTS FOR VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WRITTE N SUBMISSION DATED 23.11.2011 HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- '(2) EXPLANATION ON NARRATION IN BILLS RECEIVED FRO M COMMISSION AGENTS FOR COMMISSION PAID TO THEM: THE COMMISSION AGENTS HAVE ISSUED BILLS TO ASSESSEE FIRM FOR INTRODUCING THE CLIENTS (CUSTOMERS) TO THE ASSE SSEE FIRM AND RENDERING SERVICES. IN THE BILLS ISSUED BY THEM THE NARRATION MENTIONED IS AS UNDER: 'BEING VALUE OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR SOURCING OF CLIENTS TOWARDS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT' ACCORDINGLY FOR ABOVE SERVICES COMMISSION IS PAID F OR SOURCING THE CLIENTS. IN FEW BILLS THE NARRATION MENTIONED I S AS UNDER: 'BEING VALUE OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR PROVIDING CLIENT SERVICES RELATED TO INTERNATIONAL BANKING (REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE).' ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 7 - YOUR GOOD-SELF HAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHAT IS THE MEA NING OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE. THE COMMISSION AGENT PROC URED THE CLIENTS, PROVIDE SOME SERVICES TO THE CLIENTS, AND SOMETIMES CONVINCE THE CLIENTS TO OBTAIN SERVICES OF ASSESSEE FIRM I.E. PROCURING BUYERS CREDIT FACILITY. FOR ALL THESE WORK THE COMMISSION AGENTS CHARGE COM MISSION AS WELL AS EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE DOES NOT MEAN THAT ASSESSEE FIRM HAD INCURRED EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF AGENT. BECAUSE ASSESSEE FIRM IS NOT CLAIMING REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPE NSES BUT IT IS PAYING COMMISSION INCLUSIVE OF EXPENSES TO THE AGENTS WHIC H MAY PLEASE NOTE.' THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS ON T HE VOUCHERS, IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE SAME ARE REIMBURSEMEN T OF EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THESE EXPENSES AS COMMISSION F OR WHICH IT HAS NO EVIDENCE NOR IT HAS PRODUCED THE SAID COMMISSION AG ENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION. THEREFORE, V IDE NOTE SHEET ENTRY DATED 23.11.2011 ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN REQUIRED AS UNDER:- 'VIDE NOTE SHEET ENTRY DATED 16.11.2011, IT WAS REQ UIRED TO PRODUCE COMMISSION AGENTS FOR VERIFICATION. PLEASE PRODUCE THEM. THE BASIS ON WHICH QUANTUM OF COMMISSION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO DIFFERENT COMMISSION AGENT HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED SO FAR. PLEASE PROVIDE THE SAME I.E. ON WHAT BASIS PARTICUL AR QUANTUM OF COMMISSION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE PARTICULAR COMMISS ION AGENT. PLEASE FILE EVIDENCES FOR ARRIVING SUCH QUANTUM ALS O. ADJOURNED TO 23.11.2011 AT 11:30 AM. ' IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 30.11.2011 THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER;- '(1) BASIS OF COMMISSION PAID THE COMMISSION PAID TO AGENTS WHO PROCURED CUSTOMER S WHO NEEDED BUYER'S CREDIT. THE BASIS OF COMMISSION IS A LWAYS DECIDED MUTUALLY BY ASSESSEE FIRM AND COMMISSION AGENT. THE COMMISSION IS PAID TO THE AGENTS AT THE PERCENTAGE FIXED MUTUALLY ON COMMISSION ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 8 - RECEIPT BY THE FIRM. THE RATE OF COMMISSION IS RAN GING FROM 11.50% TO 55% ACCORDING TO VARIOUS FACTORS LIKE FINANCIAL NEE D OF CUSTOMERS, TIME DURATION IN PROCURING CREDIT FACILITY TO CUSTOMERS, FACILITY PROVIDE BY AGENTS TO CUSTOMERS AND ASSESSEE FIRM, TIME WITHIN WHICH COMMISSION IS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FIRM, REPETITION OF WORK FROM SAME CUSTOMER AND QUANTUM OF COMMISSION RECEIVED BY FIRM ETC. THE FEW BILLS OF SALES I.E. PROFESSIONAL FEE RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS ARE ENCLOS ED HEREWITH.' THE DETAILS OF COMMISSION PAID HAS BEEN MENTIONED A S UNDER:- PRAN JAIN INV. NO. AMT COMM.% COMM. AMTS 20 760000 50% 132000 77500 170500 22 866410 30% 132340 23 189440 155000 42 129000 62270 7 645922 120000 132500 19 772200 50% 128700 165000 92400 1368210 MONIKA JAIN INV. NO. AMT COMM.% COMM. AMTS 54 955500 50% 485000 105000 55 257000 590000 S UMABHARATI INV. NO. AMT COMM.% COMM. AMTS 57 613328 55% 415000 58 145009 415000 M. LAXMI INV NO. AMT COMM.% COMM. AMTS 70 138865 40% 53606 60 143144 30% 58000 ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 9 - 62 59582 36 57050 40% 201275 37 122500 38 105840 39 225600 48 324000 15% 80000 49 215000 392881 NEHA MGMT SERVICES INV NO. AMT COMM.% COMM. AMTS 29 85600 45% 95000 30 126650 15 194300 50% 95000 190000 THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SHRI AMIT RAJKUMAR, 'THE STAT EMENT OF SHRI AMIT RAJKUMAR U/S.131 AS CROSS EXAMINATION WHE REIN IT WAS STATED BY HIM. (1) I AM HELPING MY FATHER'S TEXTILE BUSINESS SINCE LAST 4 MONTHS BEFORE THIS, I WAS STUDYING. (2) I HAVE COMPLETED MY STUDIES IN 2011. (3) I HAVE RECEIVED COMMISSION FROM M/S. KIWIFIX SO LUTIONS. ON FURTHER BEING ASKED ABOUT THE NATURE OF REFERENC E SHRI AMIT RAJKUMAR STATED THAT (4) I HAVE PROVIDED CONTACT DETAILS J HAVE GIV EN ONLY THE MOBILE NO. (5) I HAVE NEVER TALKED OR CONTACTED PERSONAL LY. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT ACTUALLY NO SERVICE WAS PROV IDED BY SHRI AMIT RAJKUMAR . HENCE, THE COMMISSION STATED TO BE PAID TO HIM IS N OT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS' . THIS FACTS ALSO SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT COMMISSIO N PAID WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICES AS MENTIONED IN PARA 3.8 IS NOT CORRECT. ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 10 - THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE BASI S ON WHICH DIFFERENT RATE OF COMMISSION HAVE BEEN ARRIVED AS M ENTIONED IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 30.11.2011 IN PARA 3.9. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 02.12. 2011 HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- '(1) BASIS OF FIXATION OF RATE OF COMMISSION PAID YOUR GOODSELF HAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHAT ARE THE BAS IS ON WHICH DIFFERENTIAL RATE OF COMMISSION RANGING FROM 11.50% TO 55% HAVE BEEN PAID. THE EXPLANATION IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH AT PAGE NO.1.' 'BASIS ON WHICH COMMISSION IS DECIDED: (1) NATURE OF BUSINESS THE COMMISSION AGENT HAS G IVES US. (2) IF HE/SHE PROVIDES ONLY THE LEAD AND NOTHING E LSE, THE COMMISSION WOULD BE MINIMAL. (3) ALONGWITH THE LEAD IF HE/SHE PROVIDES CONCERNE D PERSONS DESIGNATION AND NUMBER, COMMISSION WOULD BE HIGHER THAN (2). (4) WHETHER HAS VERY STRONG HOLD IN THE COMPANY O R NOT. (5) WHETHER HAS THE ABILITY TO GET THE DEAL DOSED ON HIS/HER OWN, OR IS JUST A FACILITATOR. (6) THE SIZE OF COMPANY, WHERE WE GET AN ENTRY. (7) AMOUNT OF BUSINESS THAT IS EXPECTED TO GENERA TE FROM THE REFERENCE OR THE LEAD. (8) THE DESIGNATION AT WHICH THE COMMISSION AGENT IS APPOINTED IN THE SAME COMPANY OR ELSEWHERE. (9) FIERCE COMPETITION IN OUR BUSINESS, I.E. IF W E DON'T GIVE HIM HIGHER COMMISSION, THE DEAL WILL GO TO OUR COMPETITOR HENCE THE BASIS OF COMMISSION DECIDED IS COMPLETELY VERBAL, AND DECIDED ON DEAL TO DEAL AND ALSO NO OF LAYERS INVOL VED IN THAT DEAL. E.G. MR. PRAN JAIN, MS. UMABHARTI AND MS. MONIKA JA IN ARE VERY SENIOR PEOPLE AND HAVE VERY STRONG HOLD IN THE COMP ANIES THROUGH WHICH WE GET BUSINESS. FURTHER DEALS REFERRED BY THEM ARE ALWAYS CONVERTED. HENCE THEY COMMAND A HIGHER COMMISSION RATE.' ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 11 - IN ABOVE SUBMISSION, THE ASSESSEE, IN PARA 2, HAS M ENTIONED THAT IF HE/SHE PROVIDES ONLY THE LEAD AND NOTHING ELSE, THE COMMISSION WOULD BE MINIMAL, THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO FALSE. AS PER STATEMENT, SHRI AMIT RAJKUMAR HAS PROVIDED ONLY TEL EPHONE NUMBER (LEAD) STILL COMMISSION PAID TO HIM IS NOT MINIMAL HE HAS BEEN PAID COMMISSION @27%, WHICH IS MORE THAN THE MINIMUM COM MISSION PAID TO M, R, SOMAYAJULU, WHICH IS 11.5%. THIS SHOWS THA T THE COMMISSION PAID HAS NO RELATION WITH THE SERVICES PROVIDED. IF ANY, THOUGH NOT PROVED. A PERUSAL OF PERCENTAGE OF COMMISSION MENTIONED IN THE CHART PARA 3.9 SHOWS THAT THE COMMISSION AMOUNT IS NOT @ RATE OF THE COMMISSION MENTIONED IN THE SAID CHART. THIS ALSO S HOWS THAT THE COMMISSION PAID HAS NO RELATION WITH THE BUSINESS S TATED TO BE ACHIEVED THROUGH SAID COMMISSION AGENTS. THE BASIS OF COMMISSION/SERVICES MENTIONED IN SUBMI SSION DATED 30.11.2011 (PARA 3.8) AND THE BASIS MENTIONED IN SU BMISSION DATED 02,12.2011(PARA 3.12) ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. THIS S HOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAKING STORY TO PROVE COMMISSION PAID FOR THE BU SINESS PURPOSE. REGARDING PERSONAL PRESENCE OF THE COMMISSION AGENT S, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- '(2) PERSONAL PRESENCE OF COMMISSION AGENTS: YOUR GOODSELF HAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE COMMISSION A GENTS FOR VERIFICATION. IN THIS CONNECTION PLEASE NOTE THAT E XCEPT TWO COMMISSION AGENTS ALL OTHER COMMISSION AGENTS ARE LOCATED AT H YDERABAD CITY, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE AND ONE AT INDORE CITY, MADHYA PRADESH STATE. ONE COMMISSION AGENT LOCATED AT AHMEDABAD, HAS BEEN PRODUCE BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF ON 30-] 1-2011 FOR VERIFICATION. WE HAVE CONTACTED THE COMMISSION AGENTS LOCATED AT HYDERABAD & INDORE AND THEY HAVE INFORMED THAT, THEY HAVE ALR EADY GIVEN CONFIRMATION, IT DETAILS ETC., WHICH PROVE SERVICES RENDERED AND THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THEM. THEY HAVE STATED THAT, TH EY DO NOT HAVE ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 12 - OBJECTION IN COMING OVER TO AHMEDABAD AND APPEAR BE FORE HON'BLE JCIT, BUT SINCE THEY ARE LOCATED AT VERY FAR PLACE T HEY REQUEST HON'BLE JCIT TO SEND LETTER FOR THEIR CONFIRMATION. WE PRAY YOUR GOODSELF THAT, PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IS GENUINE, OTHERWISE THERE CANNOT BE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS OF RS.1,66,13,181/- WITHOUT P AYMENT OF COMMISSION. THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE IS DEPENDENT UPON CLIENTS, WHO NEED FINANCE IN IMPORT-EXPORT. THE ASSESSEE FIRM DO NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF CLIENTS WHO NEED THE BUYER'S CREDIT IN IMPORT-EXPOR T. MAINLY THROUGH COMMISSION AGENTS THE CLIENTS ARE INTRODUCED TO ASS ESSEE FIRM FOR THEIR REQUIREMENT. THEREFORE, THE RECEIPT OF ASSESSEE IS NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. YOUR GOODSELF IS PRAYED THEREFORE, TO ACCEPT COMMIS SION PAID AND OBLIGE.' THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INABILITY TO PRODUCED THE CO MMISSION AGENT AS MENTIONED ABOVE WHICH ARE OF OUT STATION. BUT IT HAS NOT PRODUCED ANOTHER COMMISSION AGENT WHICH IS OF AHMED ABAD ITSELF I.E. SHRI JAIMIN V SHAH. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED S UPPORTING EVIDENCES OF VOUCHERS. IT HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY EV IDENCES REGARDING WORK ATTENDED/SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE COMMISSION A GENTS AS A RESULT OF WHICH BUSINESS ACHIEVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND COMMISS ION PAID TO THEM. THIS SHOWS THAT COMMISSION PAID TO THE PARTIES WAS NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AS ALSO EVIDENT FR OM THE STATEMENT OF SHRI AMIT RAJKUMAR. THE ASSESSEE IN FURTHER SUBMISSIONS DATED 09.12.201 1 AND 16.12.2011 HAS SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION OF SHRI JAIMI N V SHAH & M. LAKSHMI RESPECTIVELY. THESE CONFIRMATION ARE ALSO M ADE PART OF THIS ORDER AS ANNEXURE 'C'. SIGNATURE IN THESE CONFIRMAT ION ARE ALSO NOT MATCHING WITH THE SIGNATURE IN VOUCHERS. APART FROM THIS ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE CONFIRMATION OF SHRI M. R. SO MAYAJULU. THE CONFIRMATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE PROVES ONLY THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED AMOUNT AS COMMISSION. IT HAS NO REFERENCE THAT WHAT SERVICES WERE PROVIDED BY THEM AND THE SAME WAS RECEIVED IN TURN OF ANY ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 13 - SERVICED PROVIDED BY THEM EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SMT . M. LAKSHMI. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCES THAT THE COMMI SSION PAID WAS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. FIRST OF ALL ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE COMMISSION WAS REIMBURSEMENT OF EX PENSES FOR WHICH HE COULD NOT FILE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. THEREAFTER, IT CLAIMED AS COMMISSION FOR WHICH IT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABL ISH THAT THE COMMISSION WAS PAID FOR ANY SERVICES PROVIDED BY TH E COMMISSION AGENTS NOR COMMISSION AGENTS IN THEIR CONFIRMATION HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THEY RECEIVED AMOUNT FOR ANY SERVICES PROVIDED BY T HEM, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE THE COMMISSION AGENTS FROM WHOM THESE FACTS CAN BE VERIFIED. THIS SHOWS THAT THE COMMISSI ON EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINE SS PURPOSE. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT GENUINE NESS OF THE COMMISSION PAID/REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES IS NO T PROVED BEYOND THE DOUBT THAT THE SAME WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EX CLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE REQUIREMENT SECTION 37(1) IS THAT THE EXPENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EX CLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUCH BUSINESS. THE STRENGTH IS DRAWN FRO M THE CASE JAYSHREE TEA AND INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT(2005) 272 ITR 193(C AL). THE WORD 'WHOLLY' HERE REFERS TO THE QUANTUM OF EXP ENDITURE. THE WORD EXCLUSIVELY REFERS TO THE MOTIVE, OBJECTIVE AN D PURPOSE OF THE EXPENDITURE AND GIVES JURISDICTIONS TO THE TAXING A UTHORITIES TO EXAMINE THESE MATTERS. AS MENTIONED ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE COMMISSION WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND E XCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. IN THE INSTANT CASE NEITHER THE RECIPIENT OF COMMIS SION WERE PRODUCED, NOR ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO JUSTIFY ITS LOGI C. ONE PERSON WHO WAS PRODUCED COULD SATISFY THE GENUINE OF THE COMMI SSION RECEIVED BY HIM. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NEXUS BETWEEN EXPENDITURE AND BUSINESS IS ESSENTIAL WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE CIT VS AMALGAMATION PVT. LTD.(1997) 226 ITR 188 (SC ) CIT VS AMALGAMATION PVT. LTD.(1997) 108 ITR 895 (MA D) ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 14 - ASSESSES ALSO FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE COMMERCIAL EXPENDEN ARY ALUMINUYM CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT(1972) 8 6 ITR I1-17(SC) TRAVANCORE ITANIUM PRODUCT LTD. VS. CIT(1966) 60 IT R 277, 282-83 (SC) IN CIT VS. NAVSARI COTTON & SILK MILLS (1982) 135 I TR 546 (GUJ) IT WAS HELD THAT SUCH AN EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE UNR EASONABLE AND OUT OF PROPORTIONS. IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTA NTIATE REASONABLENESS AND PROPORTION ON WHICH IT WAS DONE. THE ASSESSEE H AS PAID COMMISSION WHICH IS FROM 11.5% UP TO 55% WHICH IS U NREASONABLE. LOOKING TO THE ABOVE FACTS, THE COMMISSION OF RS.33 ,91,662/- IS HEREBY DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE.' 3. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY AP PEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) BUT LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS.33,91,662/- WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. THE MAIN THRUST OF THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS TH AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) IS NOT APPLICABLE WHER E PAYMENT IS LESS THAN RS.20,000/- EACH. I AM INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE EXPENSES H AVE BEEN INCURRED OTHERWISE THAN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR DEMAND DRAFT . THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) IS TO C URB THE ILLEGITIMATE EXPENSES WHICH ARE SHOWN IN THE GARB OF CASH EXPENS ES. THE PURPOSE OF INTRODUCTION SECTION 40A(3) WAS TO B LOCK THE LOOPHOLES OF MAKING CASH PAYMENTS AND CLAIMING DEDU CTIONS WITH A VIEW TO FRUSTRATE INVESTIGATION AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE RECEIPTS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM PROVIDED EACH SUCH PAYMENT IS ABOVE RS.20,000/-. ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 15 - THEREFORE, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSION GI VEN BY THE APPELLANT AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS DELETED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER. THE SERVICES HAVE BEEN RENDERED FOR APPELLANTS BUS INESS BY THE ABOVE SAID COMMISSION AGENTS, THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGE D ITS ONUS BY FILING ALL POSSIBLE DETAILS INCLUDING CONFIRMATIONS AND TD S AND SUCCESSFULLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE GENUINE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN E XPENDED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AO COULD NOT GATHER THE POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE DEPARTMENT AND TAKEN DECI SION BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS AND NOT ON THE FACTS ON RECORD. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF AO THAT THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID TO BOGUS PARTIES WHICH HAS COME INDIRECTLY TO THE APPELLANT THROUGH CASH. IN ABSENCE OF ANY PR OOF AO SHOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN SUCH FINDING. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, LD.CIT(A) HAS PASSED DETAILED AND REASONED ORDER. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT I NCLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.2 IS CONCERNED THAT CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.22,580/ - MADE BY INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN OBSERVATION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN EXPENSES OF RS.22,580/- IN CA SH ON 11/02/2009 AS EVIDENT FROM DETAILS OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPEN SES. THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 16 - HAS FILED COPY OF VOUCHER OF HOTEL HILLOCKS, MOUNT ABU IN THE NAME OF 4 ADULTS AND 2 CHILDREN. THE GUEST NAME MENTION IS MR . PANJABI MONISHA. WHETHER THE SAME IS RELATED TO BUSINESS OR NOT IS N OT CLEAR. SINCE THE EXPENSES ARE MADE IN CASH SAME ARE DISALLOWED AND A DDED BACK AS PER SECTION 40A(3) OF I.T. ACT. 6. LD. CIT GIVEN RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT WITH THE F OLLOWING OBSERVATION: I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. SUCH EXPENDITURE IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND IN VIEW OF THE F ACTS OF THE CASE ON RECORD, THE SUBMISSION CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE IS NOT IN DOUBT EVEN BY AO PAYMENTS HAV E BEEN MADE THROUGH CHEQUE AND COPY OF BILLS IS ON RECORD. THE ACTION OF AO WOULD HAVE BEEN CORRECT, HAD THERE BEEN NO FBT PAID. AS T HE AMOUNT IS SUBJECTED TO FBT, NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE IS TENABL E. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 3. THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.22,580/- U/S.40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT., 1961 IN AS MUCH AS THE PAYMENT WAS MADE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 6DD O F I.T. RULES. 3.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE OBSERVATION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN EXPENSES OF RS.22,580/- IN CA SH ON 11/02/2009 AS EVIDENT FROM DETAILS OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPEN SES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF VOUCHER OF HOTEL HILLOCKS, MOUNT ABU IN THE NAME OF 4 ADULTS AND 2 CHILDREN. THE GUEST NAME MENTION IS MR . PANJABI MONISHA. WHETHER THE SAME IS RELATED TO BUSINESS OR NOT IS N OT CLEAR. SINCE THE EXPENSES ARE MADE IN CASH SAME ARE DISALLOWED AND A DDED BACK AS PER SECTION 40A(3) OF I.T. ACT. ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 17 - 3.2 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND IT WI LL BE APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE BELOW THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SUBMISSION : THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT OF THE GROUND TH AT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN CASH EXCEEDING RS.20000/-. THE EXPENSES ARE PAID TO HOTEL HILLOCK AT MOUNT ABU TO ACCOMMODATE THE GUESTS OF T HE FIRM. AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENSES. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE BILL OF RS.22 580/- IS NOT SINGLE BILL BUT IT IS TOTAL OF VARIOUS BILLS. EACH BILL IS BELO W RS.20000/- AS UNDER. (A) HOTEL BILL DATE BILL NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT ON PAGE OF PAPER BOOK 11/02/09 529 ROOM CHARGES 17600 198 (B) MAYUR RESTAURANT 09/02/09 13132 TEA 101 199 11/02/09 13168 SNACKS 242 200 11/02/09 13167 SNACKS 231 201 10/02/09 13161 CAKE 450 202 10/02/09 13159 SNACKS 259 203 10/02/09 13151 LUNCH 377 204 10/02/09 13144 LUNCH 270 205 10/02/09 13143 BREAKFAST 248 206 10/02/09 26581 COFFEE 56 207 08/02/09 14271 LUNCH 691 208 08/02/09 13121 COFFEE 56 209 08/02/09 13120 COFFEE 56 210 09/02/09 13138 SNACKS 107 211 09/02/09 13136 COFFEE 56 212 09/02/09 13134 LUNCH 540 213 (C) LUXURY TAX (720 + 520) 1240 198 TOTAL 22580 198 ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 18 - FROM THE ABOVE, YOUR HONOUR CAN SEE THAT EACH BILL IS BELOW RS.20000 OF DIFFERENT DATES TO WHICH PROVISION OF S ECTION 40A(3) IS NOT APPLICABLE. THEREFORE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO IS UN LAWFUL & REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER. AS WE CAN SEE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT BILLS, NO PAYMENT H AS BEEN MADE MORE THAN 20,000/-. LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN REASONED AND DE TAILED ORDER AND WE FIND FORCE IN THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE REFORE, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DI SMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12 / 01 /201 8 SD/- SD/- ( ) 4 5 ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 12/01/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO. 1536/AHD/2013 ACIT VS. M/S. KIWIFX SOLUTIONS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 19 - !'# $#! # COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !$' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 67- + 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. + 8- 4!5 / THE CIT(A)-6, AHMEDABAD. 5. 9:;-67 !.!672 ! / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<=, # GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, (9-- //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 08/01/2018 (DICTATION-PAD 2 P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 11/01/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER
