Lantec Technologies, Dadra & Nagar Haveli V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vapi

ITA 1667/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94308 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA SINGH
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-08 LANTECH TECHNOLOGIES, SURVEY NO.450/2/2, MASAT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MASAT, SILVASA, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI. APPELLANT VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VAPI. RESPONDENT PAN :AACFL0823A APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARDIK VORA, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NARENDRA SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 29/7/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/09/2015 O R D E R PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 25.03.2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 2 THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE IN THIS APPEAL :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT FOR RS.1,03,91,856 /-. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN HOLDING THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED WITHOUT MANUFACTURING BY THE APPELLANTS INDUSTRIAL UNDERTA KING. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB O F THE ACT. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPH OLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO TO THE TUNE OF RS.14,91 ,264/- ON THE GROUND OF DIFFERENCES IN BALANCES OF SUNDRY CRE DITORS. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPH OLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RENT EXPENSES MADE BY THE LD. AO AM OUNTING TO RS.1,26,000/- ON THE GROUND OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT TO THE E XTENT OF THE SAID DISALLOWANCE OF RENT EXPENSES SINCE THE EL IGIBLE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WOULD INCREASE TO THE EXTENT OF THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPH OLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF FREIGHT EXPENSES MADE BY THE LD. AO AMOUNTING TO RS.2,64,627/- ON THE GROUND OF NON-DED UCTION OF TDS U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 3 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT TO THE E XTENT OF THE SAID DISALLOWANCE OF FREIGHT EXPENSES SINCE THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WOULD INCREASE TO THE EXTENT OF THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, MO DIFY OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS AS WELL AS TO SUBMI T ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE AP PEAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUF ACTURING OF ELECTRIC CONTROL PANELS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT AS PE R FORM NO.10CCB UNDER RULE 18BBB THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO H AVE STARTED COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION FROM MARCH, 2004. THE MANUFAC TURING UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE IS SITUATED IN THE BACKWARD AREA OF DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI AND CLAIMED TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT @ 100% FOR INITIAL 5 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF COMMENC EMENT OF ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. THIS BEING THE 4 TH YEAR FROM THE STATED DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIE S, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB @ 100 % OF PROFIT DERIVED FROM ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES, AND ACCO RDINGLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB AMOUNTING TO RS.1,03,91,856/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT VARIOUS INFORMATION AND EVIDE NCES HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. SO HE ISSUED ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW :- ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 4 ON PERUSAL OF THE SUCH DETAILS AND MORE PARTICULAR LY THE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,03,91,856/-, THE FOLLOWING SALIE NT POINTS HAVE EMERGED, (A) CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB (1) THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL PROD UCTION AS PER THE AUDIT REPORT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS 31/03/2004. (2) ONE SALE BILL OF ONE CONTROL PANEL UNIT WOR TH RS. 5, 44,600/- AND SOLD TO M/S. ORACK EXPORTS HOME TEXTILES PVT. LTD., SARI GAM HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AS EVIDENCE OF COMMENCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION IN THE MANUFACTURING UNIT. (3) THE LETTER OF RELEASE OF L.T. POWER CONNECTION FROM THE DEPUTY ENGINEERS ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, D&NH, SILVASSA IS DATED 31/03/2009 AND BY WAY OF SUCH LETTER IT WAS INFORME D THAT, ' THE L.T. CONNECTION 10HP WILL BE RELEASED ON 31/03/2004'. (4) IN THE BACKGROUND OF THESE FACTS IT IS DIFFIC ULT TO IMAGINE HOW THE MACHINERIES COULD HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IN ABSENCE OF POWER AND FURTHER, HOW THE MANUFACTURING OF THE ENTIRE CONTRO L PANEL UNIT COULD HAVE BEEN AFFECTED ON SUCH DATE. (5) IT NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT A CONTROL PA NEL UNIT WORTH RS. 5, 44,600/-IS NOT SMALL PRODUCT AND SAME IS BOUND TO I NVOLVE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MANUFACTURING, ASSEMBLING, FINISHING AND TESTING WORK INVOLVED. NEITHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO NOR DOES ANY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUBSTAN TIVELY PROVES THAT IT WAS DONE. AT THE OUTSET IT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED THAT BACKED BY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE COMMENCED MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION BEFORE THE END OF F.Y.2003- 04, THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB SINCE A.Y.2004-05 ONWARDS AND THEREBY, THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I .E. A.Y.2007-08 WAS THE FOURTH YEAR OF THE CLAIM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT F OR NONE OF THE PAST THREE YEARS WERE FINALIZED U/S 143(3) AND HENCE THE VERAC ITY OF THE CLAIM U/S 80IB ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 5 WAS NEVER VERIFIED EARLIER. SINCE THE PRIMARY ELIGI BILITY OF THE BUSINESS FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB HAS TO BE EXAMINED QUA THE YEAR OF COMMENCEMENT AND WHICH WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO EXAMINED EVER BEFORE, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE UNDERSIGNED TO CONDUCT SUCH VERIFICATION IN THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THAT THE CLAIM U/S 80 IB WAS VERIFIED NOT ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FULFILLMENT OF THE FOUR CONDITIO NS LAID OUT IN SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 80IB BUT ALSO IN THE CONTEXT OF SUBSECTI ON (3) OF SECTION 80IB. ON SUCH VERIFICATION THE FACTS AS CONTAINED IN THE SHO W CAUSE NOTICE DATED 21/12/2009 WERE NOTICED AND THE SAME WERE COMMUNICA TED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS POINT OF VIEW IN THE MATTER. THE FIRST & FOREMOST CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THA T SINCE CONNECTION CHARGES WERE PAID ON 16/03/2004, POWER HAD BEEN PROVISIONAL LY RELEASED, IS ABSOLUTELY BEREFT OF ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE OR BASIS . ON THE CONTRARY, THE REAL PICTURE IN THIS REGARD IS THE OPPOSITE. REFERENCE I S ONCE AGAIN MADE TO THE FACT THAT THE ONLY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF POWER CONNECTION IS THE LETTER OF RELEASE OF LT. POWER. SUCH LETTER IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED ONLY ON 31/03/2004 WHICH IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN TH E SAID DOCUMENT. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO ANY PROVISIONAL RELEASE OF POWER IN SUCH LETTER NOR IS THEIR ANY SEPARATE DOCUMENT TO SHOW THAT POWER WAS RELEAS ED PROVISIONALLY. THE LETTER OF RELEASE FURTHER CLEARLY STATES THAT SUBJE CT TO THE FULFILLMENT OF VARIOUS CONDITIONS AND ALSO SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF VA RIOUS FORMALITIES INCLUDING SIGNING OF AGREEMENT, ETC, ' THE L.T CONN ECTION OF 31/03/2004'. THE ABOVE MATTER CONTAINED IN THE LETTER OF RELEASE IS OF PRIME IMPORTANCE AND REQUIRES TO APPRECIATED IN THE PROPER SENSE. TH IS PARTICULAR SENTENCE CLARIFY SIGNIFIES THE FACT THAT NO POWER WAS RELEAS ED UP TO 31/03/2004 AND IT WAS INTENDED TO BE RELEASED ON 31/04/2004. THE FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND FORMALITI ES IS ALSO A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR FOR CONSIDERATIONS IN AS MUCH AS THE MINIMUM TIME REQUIRED FOR COMPLYING WITH THE SAME. NOW, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THAT THE RE WAS NEITHER A PROVISIONAL POWER CONNECTION NOR A PERMANENT POWER CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE ON THE DAY OF 31.3.2004. IT WOULD NOT REQU IRE ANY MAJOR EFFORT OR IMAGINATION TO EXAMINE THE POSSIBILITY OF THE CONDI TIONS & FORMALITIES CONTAINED IN THE LETTER OF RELEASE BEING FULFILLED AFTER THE ASSESSEE WAS HANDED OVER THE LETTER SOME TIME DURING THE OFFICE WORKING HOURS OF 31.03.2004. IT ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 6 WOULD ALSO NEED LITTLE IMAGINATION TO EXAMINE WHETH ER SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMPLETION OF FORMATIONS, HOW THE GOVERNMENT MACHIN ERY WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY RELEASED THE POWER CONNECTION AND AT WHAT TIME DURING THE DAY AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE THEN COMMENCED ITS PRO DUCTION. THE POSSIBILITIES OF DEFEATING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ENDLESS SO FAR AS THIS ASPECT IS CONCERNED. SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH POWER CONSUMPTION INCLUDING PROVISIONAL POWER IF ANY IS F OUND IN THE FIRST BILL OF POWER. THE CONSUMPTION OF POWER AS PER METER READIN G IS RECORDED AS NIL FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF MARCH 2004 TO JULY, 2004. THIS FACT WOULD SUFFICIENTLY INVALIDATE THE OPENING CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE MANUFACTURE OF THE CONTROL PANEL HAS BEEN DONE WITHIN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, THE E LABORATE DESCRIPTION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND LIST OF MACHINERY INVOLVED CONT AINS ELEVEN DIFFERENT PROCESSES BY ELEVEN DIFFERENT MACHINERIES. BY THE A SSESSEES OWN ADMISSION, SEVEN MACHINERIES CAN ONLY BE OPERATED B Y POWER, WHEREAS THE OTHER FOUR CAN BE OPTIONALLY HAND OPERATED ALSO. MO ST IMPORTANTLY, NONE OF THE PROCESSES TO BE CARRIED ON BY THE POWER OPERATE D SEVEN MACHINES IS OPTIONAL. EACH OF SUCH PROCESS LIKE WELDING, DRILLI NG, PUNCHING, PAINTING BY AIR COMPRESSOR, GRINDING & CUTTING ARE INSEPARABLE & MANDATORY PROCESS WITHOUT WHICH THE MANUFACTURE OF THE PANEL BOX CANN OT EVEN BEGIN LEAVE ALONE GETTING COMPLETED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT REQUIREMENT OF POWER ARISE ONLY AT A LATER STAGE. THE CONTENTION ITSELF DESERVES REJECTI ON BECAUSE THE WELDING OF THE SHEETS IS PART OF THE VERY INITIAL PROCESS OF M ANUFACTURE, WITHOUT WHICH NO MANUFACTURE COULD EVEN BEGIN. OF COURSE, THERE I S NO POSSIBILITY OF WELDING MACHINES BEING OPERATED WITHOUT POWER. FURT HER, IF ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF THIS CONTENTION IS CONSIDERED, THEN, ANOTHE R ASPECT OF THIS CASE IS THAT AS PER THE POWER BILL, NOT A SINGLE UNIT WAS CONSUM ED AT LEAST UP TO JULY 2004. THIS FACT ALONE PROVES THAT NONE OF THE MANDA TORY PROCESSES INVOLVED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF A CONTROL PANEL WERE DONE AT LEAST UP TO JULY 2004. AT THE RISK OF REPETITION, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE WELDING PROCESS IS PROBABLY THE MOST INITIAL PROCESS EVEN TO BEGIN THE MANUFACT URE. THE EXISTENCE OF A REMOTE POSSIBILITY THAT A FEW M. S. SHEETS WOULD HAVE BEEN CUT MANUALLY, CANNOT SATISFY THE BASIC CONDITI ON FOR DECIDING THE ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 7 FUNDAMENTAL ELIGIBILITY OF A BUSINESS FOR DEDUCTION U/S SOIB AS ENVISAGED BY THE STATUTE. THE INTENTION WAS NEVER TO RECOGNIZE P OSSIBILITIES OR EVEN COSMETIC PROCESSES OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY CARRIE D OUT, FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION. EVEN WHILE FOLLOWING THE MUCH MISUSE D MAXIM OF LIBERAL INTERPRETATION, A LINE NEEDS TO BE DRAWN AT SOME PO INT WHERE THE SO CALLED LIBERAL INTERPRETATION IS BROUGHT TO AN END AND REA L FACTS TAKE OVER. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY REJECTED. IT IS HELD THAT THE M ANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OR PRODUCTION OF ARTICLES OR THINGS IN THE INSTANT CAS E DID NOT COMMENCE ON OR BEFORE 31/03/2004 AND THEREFORE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE A NON-ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUB SEC TION (1) R.W.S. SUBSECTION (3) OF SECTION SOIB OF THE I.T. ACT 1961, THIS NON- ELIGIBILITY IS FOUND TO HAVE EXISTED AB-INITIO I.E. FROM THE PERIOD 01/04/2 003 TO 31/03/2004. IT FURTHER SEEN FROM THE CONFIRMATION OF VARIOUS SU NDRY CREDITORS FILED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN BALANCES OF THE FOLLOWING PARTIES : 1. M/S MAHESHWARI TRADING COMPANY (I) DIFFERENCE IN OPENING BALANCE RS.3,35,855/- (II) PURCHASES NOT CREDITED BY THE A RS.2,44,635/- 2. PRAKASH INDUSTRIAL SERVICES P. LTD. (I) DIFFERENCE IN OPENING BALANCE RS.4,83,499/- (II) PURCHASES NOT CREDITED BY THE A RS.1,74,000/- (III) PURCHASES CREDITED BY THE A BUT NOT DEBITED BY PARTY RS.253,275/- TOTAL - RS.14,91,264/- VERIFICATION OF DETAILS REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION OF TDS ON EXPENSES OF RENT OF RS.1,26,000/- AND FREIGHT OF RS.2,64,627/-. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) THE SAME ARE DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE 3. IN THIS CONNECTION THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSIONS AND HAVING CONSIDERED THEM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SAME AND ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 8 DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.1,03,91,856 /- U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO ALSO IN TURN CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SATISFIED AND BEING AGGRIEVED IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY ARG UED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMI TTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AS SESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING RS.1,03,91,856/- UNDER SECTION 80IB, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION WITHOUT COMMENCEMENT OF ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO ELECTRIC CONNECTION AND ACCORDINGLY MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY DID NOT COMMENCE ON OR BEFOR E 31.03.2004 AND THUS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED AND RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE UPHELD. ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 9 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CARE FULLY GOING THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ASSESS EE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ELECTRIC CONTRO L PANELS. THE UNIT STARTED MANUFACTURING FROM MARCH, 2004. THE ST AND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT ASSESSEE IS A SMALL SCALE IN DUSTRIAL REGISTERED UNIT AND ASSESSEE STARTED WORKING FOR MANUFACTURING OF CONTROL PANELS AND RECEIVED PROVISIONAL SSI REGISTRATION CE RTIFICATE AS EARLY AS ON 05.03.2004. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOU BTED AUTHENTICITY OF SSI REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE SSI RE GISTRATION WHICH PLACED AT PAGES 68 & 69 IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. THE SECOND ARGUMENT OF ASSESSEE IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS REGISTERED BEFORE SALES-TAX AUTHORITIE S AS MANUFACTURING UNIT AND FILLED AS NIL AGAINST CLA USE FOR RESALE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SALES-TAX AND CENTRAL SALES-TAX CERTIFICATES WHICH WERE ISSUED ON 12/03/2004 AND PLACED ON PAGES 70 & 71 OF THE PA PER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE THIRD ARGUMENT OF ASSESS EE IS THAT VAT DEPARTMENT HAS CERTIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MANU FACTURED THE GOODS WHICH WERE SOLD FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 31.03.2 004 AND ACCORDINGLY GIVEN EXEMPTION UPTO 31.03.2017. THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED AUTHENTICITY OF CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION ISSUED BY VAT DEPARTMENT OF DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI BE ING AN INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY. EXEMPTION CERTIFI CATE NO. ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 10 ADM/DNH/EXEMPT/CST/2009/2568 DATED 6/1/2009 PLACED ON PAGE 72 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ONCE SALE HAS BEEN VERIF IED ON THE STRENGTH OF EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE FROM CONCERNED VA T DEPARTMENT MANUFACTURING/PRODUCTION OF ASSESSEE IS AUTOMATIC. CRUCIAL ISSUE FOR MANUFACTURING IS ELECTRIC CONNECTION. IN THIS R EGARD OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS THE TEST REPORT FROM EL ECTRICITY DEPARTMENT ACCORDING TO WHICH ELECTRIC INSTALLATION WAS TESTED ON 29/03/204. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED AU THENTICITY OF CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRIC INSTALLATION GIVEN BY ELECT RICITY DEPARTMENT. FIRST BILL OF ELECTRICITY STARTS FROM MARCH 2004 AN D ENERGY CHARGES STATED THEREIN IS RS.1015/- COUPLED WITH TAXES. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED RS.1,015/- IS MINIMUM CHARGES AND NO ENERGY CHARGES WAS THERE IN BILL AS AMOUNT OF RS .1,015/- IS STATED AS ENERGY CHARGES AND MINIMUM CHARGES IS STA TED AS NIL. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FILED ANOTHER BILL FROM CONCERNED ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT PERTAINING TO MARC H, 2004 TO JULY, 2004 ACCORDING TO WHICH CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY IS 0 BUT ON THE SAME DOCUMENT ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION HAS BEEN SHO WN AT 8 UNITS. THE SAID BILL WAS TO BE PAID ON 4 TH OCTOBER, 2004. IN THIS REGARD THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OU T THAT THIS BILL IS FOR LOW TENSION. AT THE SAME TIME ENERGY HAS BEEN CONSUMED. IN THIS REGARD WE FIND A LOW TENSION POWER BUT AS FAR AS CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY IS CONCERNED IT IS CONTRADICTORY INF ORMATION ON THE ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 11 SAME DOCUMENT. IN CASE THERE IS CONTRADICTION IN TH E DOCUMENT THE BENEFIT GOES IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BECAUSE ENERGY CONSUMPTION HAS BEEN SHOWN AS 8 UNITS. COMING TO THE OTHER BILL ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE BILL DATED 11.11.2004 PLACED AT PAGE 70 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN ENERGY CH ARGES HAVE BEEN CLAIMED TO BE RS.1015/-. METER HIRE CHARGES HA VE BEEN CLAIMED TO BE RS.17/- WHICH SHOWS THAT ENERGY HAS B EEN CONSUMED AND THIS BILL IS PERTAINING TO MARCH, 2004 TO SEPTE MBER, 2004. THIS ELECTRIC METER WAS INSTALLED ON 29.3.2004. IT SHOWS THAT THE UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE STARTED FUNCTIONING FROM MARCH, 2004 I TSELF AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE BILL AS PLACED ON PAGE -76 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS DISCUSSED ABOUT ELECTRICITY BILL OF LOW TENSION CONNECTION TO NEGATE THE CLAIM OF MANUFACTU RING OF THE ASSESSEE, WHILE THIS CONNECTION HAS NOTHING TO DO W ITH MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF UNIT. BOTH ARE INDEPENDEN T OF EACH OTHER. ONLY ENERGY CONNECTION HAS TO BE LOOKED WHILE CONSI DERING ALLOWABILITY OF ASSESSEES CLAIM UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE REP RODUCE THE OBSERVATIONS OF CIT(A) AS UNDER :- 6.1.2 THE ABOVE TABLE SHOWS THAT THE 7 MACHINERIES IN THE ENTIRE PROCESS CAN ONLY BE OPERATED BY POWER WHEREAS THE O THER FOUR CAN BE OPTIONALLY HAND OPERATED ALSO. THE MANUFACTURING OF THE CONTROL PANEL WILL REQUIRE CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY AS PER T HE MANUFACTURING PROCESS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. BUT ON THE PERU SAL OF THE FIRST ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 12 ELECTRICITY BILL SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT (PAGE 1 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK) SHOWS THAT AS PER THE RECORDS FROM MARCH04 TO JULY 04 THE ELECTRICITY BILL RAISED WAS ONLY RS.1,326/-. THE MINIMUM CHARGE S BEING RS.1,250/-, METER CHARGES BEING RS.50/- AND LATE PA YMENT CHARGES WAS RS.26/-. INITIAL METER READING AND FINAL READIN G DURING THE SAME PERIOD REMAINED 8 UNITS WHICH INDICATE THERE WAS NO POWER CONSUMPTION DURING THAT PERIOD. IT SHOWS THAT REVENUE HAS RELIED ON THE BILL OF LOW TENSION POWER WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACE D COPY OF THE ENERGY CHARGES BILL VIDE PAGE NO.76 OF THE PAPER BO OK, WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THE ENERGY CHARGES OF RS.1053 INCLUDI NG ENERGY CHARGES, METER HIRE CHARGES OF RS.17/- ALONG WITH D ELAYED PAYMENT CHARGES. THIS BILL IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN FILED BE FORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, SO THEY ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIS ALLOWING AND CONFIRMING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. APART FROM THIS A SSESSEE HAS FILED ALL RECORDS RELATING TO MACHINERY PURCHASE BILL, WH ICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED ON 14.3.2004 AND THE SAME ARE P LACED AT PAGES 77 TO 83 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE REVENUE AU THORITIES HAVE NOT DOUBTED THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RE CORD WAGES SHEETS (AT PAGE 84 OF THE PAPER BOOK), THE WAGES WE RE PAID TO 12 EMPLOYEES AND ONE MORE REQUIREMENT OF MANUFACTURING WAS SATISFIED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED TH E SAME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE SALE BILL OF 31.3.2004 WHICH SHOWS SALES-TAX NIL, AS SALES TAX HAS BEEN EXEMPTED AS PER EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE. THE SAME IS PLACED ON PAGE 8 5 OF THE PAPER ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 13 BOOK. THE CIT(A) ISSUED NOTICE TO THE PURCHASER AND THE PURCHASER HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME, BUT THE CIT(A) REMAINED SIL ENT ON THE SAME. THIS IS INDICATIVE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IS ALSO JUSTIFIED AND THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SOLD ITS PRODUCT ON 31.3.2004 AND SALES-TAX WAS NIL AS PER EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE. IT IS FURTHER STR ENGTHENED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER CENTRAL SALES-TAX AS PLACED ON PAGES 93 TO 95 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE CONDITIO NS OF COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURING UNIT ARE SATISFIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT DOUBTED THE SA ID ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER CENTRAL SALES TAX PROVISIONS. THE CENTR AL SALES-TAX ASSESSMENT CAN BE DONE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CEN TRAL SALES-TAX ACT, 1956. SO THE CONDITIONS FOR THE SAME HAVE BEEN FULFILLED. CENTRAL SALES-TAX ASSESSMENT ORDER IS A QUASI JUDIC IAL ORDER WHICH CANNOT BE IGNORED AND IN CASE WE BELIEVE THE STORY OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES IT WILL AMOUNT TO DISBELIEVE THE CENTRA L SALES-TAX ACT WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE ORDER OF IS OF A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY. IT SHOULD NOT BE CONTRADICTED BY OTHER QUASI JUDICIAL BODY UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUMMONED THE PURCHASER OF GOOD AN D THE PURCHASER CONFIRMED THE PURCHASE OF GOODS. IN RESPO NSE TO THE COMPLIANCE PLACED AT PAGE 96 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN KEEPING SILENT ON THE ISSUE. IT IS NOT ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 14 JUSTIFIED FOR REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO KEEP SILENCE O N THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL LIKE CONFIRMATION OF PURCHASES IN REPLY TO SUMMONS, MACHINERY PURCHASE B ILLS, WAGE SHEET. EVEN EVIDENCES LIKE DIRECT ORDERS/CERTIFICAT ES ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES IN THEIR STATUTORY CAPACITIE S AFTER DUE VERIFICATION IN THE FORM OF SSI REGISTRATION CERTIF ICATE, EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE FROM VAT DEPARTMENT, TEST REPORT FROM E LECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER CENTRAL SALES -TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO DISBELIEVE T HE SAME ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE FACTUAL AND LEGAL DISCUSSION THE ASSESSEE IS HELD TO BE ELIGIB LE FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.1,03,91,856/- UNDER SECTION 80IB. ASSESSING OFFI CER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 7. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TUNE OF RS.14,91,264/- ON THE GROUND OF DIFFERENCES IN BALA NCES OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. 7.1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON VERIFICATION OF THE CONFIRMATION OF THE SUNDRY CRED ITORS FOUND THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE OPENING BALANCE AND PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.14,91,264/- FOR WHICH NO EXPLANATION WAS PROVIDE D BEFORE HIM. ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 15 SO THE SAME WAS ADDED. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS CLUBBED ALL THE DIFFERENCES IN THE PURCHASES AN D THE OPENING BALANCE AND HAS SIMPLY ADDED UP ALL THE DIFFERENCES , IGNORING THE FACT THAT IN FACT SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES WOULD HAV E NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCES SUCH AS CO NFIRMATORY LETTERS FROM THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AND THE RECONCILI ATION STATEMENT FROM THE TWO CREDITORS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION . IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE ONLY SELF-SERVING DOCUMENTS NOT SUPPORTED BY AN Y EVIDENCES. THUS THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7.2 THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THA T ALL THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES WERE PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW BUT THEY HAVE NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND NE GATED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE NECESSAR Y MATERIAL ARE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S NECESSARY RELIEF BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAN D, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 16 7.3 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CA REFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED TH AT THIS DOCUMENT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CLAIMED AND AS EVIDENT FROM THE DETAILS. THIS CERTIFICATE WAS PLACED BEFORE THE AUT HORITIES BELOW AND IN SUCH SITUATION IT IS NOT PROPER ON THE PART OF B OTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO NEGATE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE, WE THINK IT JUST AND PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO T HE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRE SH, AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEA RD. SINCE WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE ON TECHNICAL GROUND, WE REFRAIN FROM COMMENTING ON MERIT ON THE ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF RENT EXPENSES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS.1,26 ,000/- AND FREIGHT EXPENSES OF RS.2,64,627/- ON THE GROUND OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AN D CONSEQUENT CLAIM OF 80IB OF SAME WAS ALSO DISALLOWED. 8.1 THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THA T THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE THEM AND APPRECIATED THE FACTS. THEY HAVE WRONGLY D ENIED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 17 MATERIAL/EVIDENCES MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED PROPERL Y AND NECESSARY RELIEF UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB O F THE ACT BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON AMOUNT DISALLOWED U/S 40 (A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8.2 THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THA T A SIMILAR CASE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAHJANAND ASSOCIATES I N TAX APPEAL NO.558 OF 2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 16/01/2013 (COPY OF ORDER PLACED ON RECORD) WHEREIN THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FA VOUR OF ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAHJANAND ASSOCIA TES (SUPRA) SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE U/S 80IB SHOUL D BE ALLOWED ON THESE TWO DISALLOWANCES U/S 40(A)(IA). ON THE OTHE R HAND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SIMPLY RELIED ON THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GOI NG THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAHJANAND ASSOCIATES AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DE CIDED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 18 3. HAVING HEARD LEARNED ADVOCATE FOR THE REVENUE, WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN SO FAR AS ASS ESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS CONCERNED, THE TRIBUNAL HAS MERELY REMANDED THE ISS UE FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE NATURE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND THE GROUND ON WHICH THE SAME CAN BE ALLOWED HAS COME UP BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE PAST. THE ENTIRE ISSUE CAME TO BE EXAMINED THREADBARE IN THE CASE OF COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS REPORTED IN (2012) 341 ITR 403 (GUJ). IN THIS RESPECT, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED F OR. 4. WITH RESPECT TO THE TRIBUNALS VIEW THAT IF THER E IS DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THEN SUCH ADDITIONAL INCOME WOULD ALSO QUA LIFY FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, WE DO NOT FULLY CONCUR. IT MAY BE THAT CERTAIN EXPENDITURE MA Y BE DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT TAX DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE AT THE TIME OF MAKING SUCH PAYMENT WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. NEVERTHELESS NO EFFECT OF SUCH DISALLOWANCE WOULD BE THERE ON THE ASSESSEES PROFIT FROM ITS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SINCE IT WOULD BE INCREASED T O THAT EXTENT. NEVERTHELESS, SUCH INCREASED INCOME WOULD ALSO QUAL IFY FOR DEDUCTION, EVEN OTHERWISE, AVAILABLE UNDER THE STAT UTE. 5. BEFORE CONCLUDING HOWEVER, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SMALL CLARIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SUM OF RS.14,05,7 01/-. THE TRIBUNAL HAS MERELY CONFIRMED THE DECISION OF CIT(A ) HOLDING THAT SUCH DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES WOULD QUALIFY FOR DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THIS GROUND IS RIGHTLY VIEWED IN THE BACKGROUND OF TRIBUNALS SUBSEQUENT O BSERVATION AND THE DECISION WHEREIN THE ENTIRE ISSUE OF ASSESS EES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF INCOME-TAX ACT CAME TO BE REMANDED FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. ONLY IF THE ASSES SEE SUCCEEDS, IN ESTABLISHING SUCH CLAIM, THE QUESTION OF GRANTING D EDUCTION EVEN FOR THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.14,05,701/- WOULD ARISE. THIS WAS THE ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 19 VERY INTENTION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND WE, IN ANY CASE, MAKE IT EXPLICIT. NOTHING CONTRARY TO THIS WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE, SO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB TO THE EXTEN T OF DISALLOWANCES OF RENT AND FREIGHT CHARGES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) DISCUSSED ABOVE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGL Y. 9. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 2 ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (S HAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :02/09/2015 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 DY.REGISTRAR,ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO.1667/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2007-2008 20 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 29/7/2015 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 3/8/2015 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: 2/9/2015 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: