M/s. Shreenath Texprint Pvt.Ltd., Surat V. The ACIT.,Circle-4, Surat

ITA 2170/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6449 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JANGID
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Gross profit estimation; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Rule of consistency; Block assessment
• Section: 147; 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2170/ AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05.) M/S. SHREENATH TEXPRINT P. LTD., 158/12013, GIDC, PANDESARA, SURAT VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, SURAT PAN/GIR NO. :AADCS2570M (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAJESH SHAH & SHRI HARDIK VORA, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI J P JANGID, SR. DR O R D E R PER SHRI D. C. AGRAWAL, AM :- 1. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, SURAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1) THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.13.77.090/-, AS MADE BY THE A.O. FOR ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES, WHICH IS ABSOLUTE LY INCORRECT AND BAD-IN-LAW, REQUIRING OUTRIGHT DELETION. 2) THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,11,280/- I N RESPECT OVERESTIMATED WORK-IN-PROGRESS IN THE ACTIVITY OF J OB WORK OF MAN MADE FABRICS, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT- I.T.A.NO. 2170/AHD/2008 2 THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS EXCLUSIVELY ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF JOB WORK I.E. IT IS A SERVICE PROVIDER, AS PER ACCOUNTING STANDARDS (AS) -2 NO INVENTORY OF WIP CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF SERVICE PROVIDERS, NO REVENUE IS TO BE RECOGNIZED UNLESS THE RENDERING OF SERVICES UNDER A CONTRACT IS COMPLETED OR SUBSTANTIALLY COMP LETED, CLOSING STOCK CANTO BE TAKEN IN ISOLATION WITHOUT T AKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OPENING STOCK AND METHOD OF ACCOUNTING CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED AND EVEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE DEPARTED. 3) THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY REJE CTED U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN DYEING OF FABRICS ON JOB WORK BASIS. THE 1 ST ISSUE RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.13,27,090/- IN RESP ECT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE MADE PURCHASES OF CO LOUR AND CHEMICALS FORM TWO PARTIES I.E. (A) POJA DYE CHEM RS.8,70,050/- AND (B) ABHI DYES - RS.5,07,040/- TOTAL RS.13,77,090/- 3. SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI ROHIT PANWALA WHO WAS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. POOJA DYECHEM. HIS STATEMENT ON OATH U/S 131 WAS TAKEN WHERE HE STATED THAT NO SUCH COLOUR AND CHEMICALS WERE SOLD TO ANY PARTIES AND HE HAD ONLY ISSUED ACCOMMODATION BILLS. HE ALSO SEEMS TO HAVE STATED THAT HE USED T O RECEIVE THE CHEQUES, I.T.A.NO. 2170/AHD/2008 3 DEPOSIT THE SAME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, WITHDRAW CASH AND REPAY THE AMOUNT TO THE PURCHASER OF COLOUR AND CHEMICALS AFTER DEDU CTING COMMISSION WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT 25 PAISE PER RS.100/-. IT WAS ALSO STATED BY HIM THAT SIMILAR ACTIVITIES WERE DONE BY M/S. ABHI DYES WHICH IS OWN ED BY HIS WIFE. SIMILAR STATEMENT WAS GIVEN BY HER ALSO. ON THE ABOVE BASI S, THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE PURCHASES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE TWO CONCERNS. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE A.O. THAT THE STAT EMENTS GIVEN BY SHRI RAJESH PANWALA AND HIS WIFE ARE UNSUBSTANTIATED AND UNCORROBORATED. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PURCHASING DIFFERENT CHEMICALS FR OM ALL OVER. DIFFERENT SUPPLIERS SUPPLY SPECIFIED GOODS WHICH ARE DULY REC EIVED THROUGH CHALLANS AND SUPPORTED BY BILLS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT CONSUMPTION OF COLOUR AND CHEMICALS HAS REDUCED ON PER METER BASIS AS UNDER: MAR 2003 MAR 2004 COLOUR & CHEM 106 LACS 254.1 LACS METERAGE 64.35 LACS 190.43 LACS 1.64 PER MTR. 1.33 PER METER 4. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE AUDITED. THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE COMPLEX. THERE ARE SEVERAL REGISTERS AND RECORDS REQUIRED BY DIFFE RENT LAW AGENCIES WHICH ARE MAINTAINED AND AUDITED. THE A.O. WAS NOT SATIS FIED AND HELD THAT PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE TWO CONCE RNS NAMELY; POOJA DYECHEM AND ABHI DYES; ARE NOT GENUINE AND ACCORDIN GLY HE PROPOSED AN ADDITION OF RS.13,77,090/- AFTER INVOKING THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 145(3). CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION PRIMARILY RELYING ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ROHIT PANWALA. IN THIS REGARD, HE OBSERVED AS UNDE R: I.T.A.NO. 2170/AHD/2008 4 2.8 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE AP PELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF, THE AO. THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE AP PELLANT IS THAT THE PURCHASE BILLS IN RESPECT OF THE GOODS PURCHASE D HAVE SALES TAX NUMBERS ON IT. HE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT BY CHEQUE. T HE MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE AO IS THAT THE SUPPLIER HAS STATED THAT HE WAS NEVER ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF COLOUR AND CHEMICAL DYES . THE SUPPLIER HAS STATED THAT HE HAD GIVEN ACCOMMODATION BILLS FO R THESE GOODS. HE HAD RECEIVED THE CHEQUES, DEPOSITED IT IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT AND AFTER DEDUCTING THE COMMISSION PAID THE CASH BACK T O THE ASSESSEE. THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY ROHIT PANWALA U/S 131. THE APPELLANTS FAILED TO KEEP THE RECEIPT REGISTER OF T HE COLOUR CHEMICALS. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO KEEP TH E CONSUMPTION REGISTER OF COLOUR AND CHEMICALS. IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE TWO REGISTERS THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE COLOUR AND CHEMICALS FROM THESE TWO PARTIES WERE INDEED RECEIV ED. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY OTHER DETAILS I N RESPECT OF THESE CHEMICALS. HENCE IT IS CLEAR THAT IN VIEW OF THE SE TTLED POSITION OF LAW AS QUOTED BY THE AO THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE PURCHASES OF COLOUR AND CHEMICALS FROM THESE TWO PA RTIES. THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LA-MEDICA (SUPRA) IS CLEARLY IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT. SIM ILARLY, THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRAVILAS HOTEL (SUPRA) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE A SSESSEE COULD HAVE PRODUCED PROOF OF DELIVERY OF THIS MATERIAL AN D CONSUMPTION OF THIS MATERIAL. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME THE CO NTENTION OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE LOW GP ALSO SUPPO RTS THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INFLATED PURCHASES BY ENTERIN G IN THE BOOKS BOGUS PURCHASES. IF THE LAST YEAR'S GP IS ADOPTED T HEN THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PROFIT LESS BY RS.30 LACS AT LEA ST. THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE AO IS CON FIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DOTAL PURCHASES OF COLOUR AND CHEMICALS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,23,53,168/- FOR WHICH COMPOELTE DETAILS ARE KEPT. THE PURCHASES OF COLOUR AND CHEMICALS FROM THESE TWO PARTIES NAMELY POOJA DYECHEM AND ABH I DYES IS ONLY 6.16% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES. THERE ARE SEVERAL INTERNAL CONTROL PROCEDURES FROM PURCHASES TO RECEIPT AND CONSUMPTION OF COLOUR AND CHEMICALS. WHEN THE I.T.A.NO. 2170/AHD/2008 5 GOODS ARE RECEIVED IN THE FACTORY, THEY ARE CHECKED BY SECURITY OFFICE, STAMP IS PUT ON DELIVERY CHALLANS, THIS STAMP REFLECTS IN WARD NUMBER, DATE OF RECEIPT OF GOODS, VEHICLE NUMBER BY WHICH GODS ARE RECEIVED , TIME OF RECEIPT, WEIGHT OF THE GOODS RECEIVED ETC. THESE CHALLANS A RE RECORDED BY STORE KEEPER AND RECORD IS MAINTAINED WHEN COLOUR AND CHE MICALS ARE SENT FOR CONSUMPTION. THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT PUT THEIR STA MP ON THE BILLS RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES. THE BILLS, DELIVERY CHALLAN AND CHEQUES FOR PAYMENTS ARE SENT TO THE DIRECTORS FOR THEIR SIGNATURE. THE BAN K STATEMENT SHOWS THE DEBIT OF THE MONEY FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOW ING PAYMENT BY ACCOUNTS PAYEE CHEQUES. FURTHER, THERE IS NO EVIDE NCE BROUGHT OUT ON RECORD BY THE A.O. THAT PAYMENTS MADE BY ACCOUNTS PAYEE CH EQUES HAD BEEN RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SHRI RAJESH PANWALA WHOSE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED HAS NEVER SAID AS TO WHOM TH E MONEY WAS PAID. SHRI RAJESH PANWALA WAS NOT OFFERED FOR CROSS EXAMINATIO N. THERE IS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. LD. A.R. FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FOLLOWING THREE CASES: 1) SUMAN SILK MILLS (P) LTD. VS ITO: I.T.A.NO. 37 94/A/08 2) KRISHNA ART SILK CLOTH VS DCIT: I.T.A.NO. 1264/A/10 3) DHARMESH SILK MILLSA P.LTD. VS ITO: I.T.A.NO. 4108/ A/07 6. HE PARTICULARLY REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SUMAN SILK MILLS (P) LTD (SUPRA) WHERE SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF ROHIT PANWALA. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELET ED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS VITIATED ON ACCOUNT OF VI OLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ONCE SHRI ROHIT PANW ALA HAS I.T.A.NO. 2170/AHD/2008 6 STATED THROUGH AN AFFIDAVIT THAT HE IS RUNNING 12 C ONCERNS AND OPERATING 12 BANK ACCOUNTS ISSUING BOGUS BILLS TO V ARIOUS PARTIES AND RETURNING CASH TO THEM AND ON THAT BASI S ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 THEN IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE AO TO OFFER SHRI ROHIT PANWALA FO R CROSS- EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE ROHIT PANWALA IS THE WITNESS OF THE REVENUE THE ONUS LIES ON THE REVENUE TO ENFORCE HIS ATTENDANCE AND ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAM INE HIM. MERELY ISSUING SUMMONS BY THE AO TO ROHIT PANWALA I S NOT ENOUGH TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS WHICH HAS TO BE ENSURE D THAT ROHIT PANWALA ATTENDS HIS OFFICE AND ASSESSEE ATTEN DS HIS OFFICE AND HE IS OFFERED FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE ENTIRE CASE OF THE REVENUE REVOLVES AROUND THE STAT EMENT OF ROHIT PANWALA. SINCE NO CROSS EXAMINATION OF ROHIT PANWALA IS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE THEN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE READ IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. IN THIS REGARD WE REFER TO THE DECISION OF HON. SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF KISHINCHAND CHELARAM VS. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROV ERT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD WE REFER TO T HE FOLLOWING HEAD NOTES FROM THAT DECISION :- IT WAS TRUE THAT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INCOME-TAX LAW WERE NOT GOVERNED BY THE STRICT RULES OF EVIDENCE, AND, THEREFORE, IT MIGHT BE SAID THAT EVEN WITHOUT CALLING THE MANAGER OF THE BANK IN EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 18, 1955, IT COULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS EVIDENCE. BUT BEFORE THE I NCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES COULD RELY UPON IT, THEY WERE BOUND TO PRODUCE IT BEFORE THE ASSESSEE SO THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD CONT ROVERT THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN IT BY ASKING FOR AN OPPORTU NITY TO CROSS- EXAMINE THE MANAGER OF THE BANK WITH REFERENCE TO T HE STATEMENTS MADE BY HIM. NOR WAS THERE ANY EXPLANATI ON REGARDING WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE MANAGER APPEARED I N OBEDIENCE TO THE SUMMONS REFERRED TO IN THE LETTER DATED MARCH 9, 1957, AND WHAT STATEMENT HE HAD MADE. 13. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SMC SHARE B ROKERS LTD. (2007) 288 ITR 345 (DEL) HAS HELD THAT WHERE A SSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR PERMISSION TO CROSS-EXAMINE A PERSON SEARCHED I.T.A.NO. 2170/AHD/2008 7 AND SUCH CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS NOT ALLOWED THEN ORD ER OF ASSESSMENT WILL NOT BE VALID. IN THIS REGARD WE REF ER TO THE FOLLOWING HEAD NOTES FROM THAT DECISION:- A SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMISES OF ONE MA , A DIRECTOR OF A COMPANY. ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENT S DISCOVERED AND THE STATEMENTS OF MA, A BLOCK ASSESS MENT WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF MA AND THE COMPANY ON AUGUST 29, 2002, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BC OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961. SUBSEQUENTLY, BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WE RE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED ON NOV EMBER 28, 2004, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TIME AND AGAIN TO PERMIT IT TO CR OSS-EXAMINE MA ON THE BASIS OF WHOSE STATEMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN LAUNCHED AND FROM WHOSE POSSESSION THE DOCUMENTS WE RE RECOVERED, SO THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD PROVE ITS CAS E. THE REQUEST WAS NOT ACCEDED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FUNCTI ONING AS A QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND WAS UNDER AN OBLIGATIO N TO ADHERE TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. SEVERAL REQUE STS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT MA WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR CROSS- EXAMINATION. ON THAT BASIS, THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT : HELD,_ THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN ITS VIEW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF MA BEING MADE AVAILABLE FOR CROSS-EXAMIN ATION, DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS BY THE ASSESSEE, HIS STAT EMENT COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO ITS DETRIMENT. 14. IN CIT VS. C.F. JOHNSON (1996) 229 ITR 750 (KER ) ONE LESSEE HAD GIVEN AN AFFIDAVIT THAT HE PAID RS.10 LA CS OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY TO THE LESSOR AND WAS OFFERED FOR ASSESSMENT. THE AO HAD SOUGHT TO ASSESS THIS SUM IN THE HANDS OF LESSOR WITHOUT GIVING HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROS S EXAMINE THE LESSEE. HON. KERALA HIGH COURT HELD THAT SUCH A DDITION CANNOT BE MADE AS LESSEE WAS NOT PUT TO CROSS-EXAMI NATION BY THE ASSESSEE. HON. KERALA HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER :- I.T.A.NO. 2170/AHD/2008 8 HELD,_ THAT (I) WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THE SWORN STAT EMENT OF THE LESSEE THAT HE PAID RS.10 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEE (LE SSOR), THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO MAT ERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS. 1 0 LAKHS; (II) WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN NOT INCLUDING THE SUM OF RS.10 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GRO UND THAT THE LESSEE WAS NOT PUT TO CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE ASSE SSEE; (III) WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN NOT REMITTING THE CASE TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AFRE SH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE LESSEE; AND (IV) WHETHER, AS POSSESSION WAS ADMITTEDLY HAND ED OVER AND IN VIEW OF SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT, 1961, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO TRA NSFER UNDER THE IMPUGNED AGREEMENT AND SO LEVY OF CAPITAL GAINS COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED, WERE QUESTIONS OF LAW TO BE REFERRED. 15. IN ITO VS. ABHISHEK ISPAT (P) LTD. IN ITA NO.2709/AHD/2008 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 PRONOUNCED ON 30.9.2010 THE STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI PRAJAPATI AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO BE IGNORED BECAUSE HE WAS NOT OFFERED FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HON. SUPREME COURT IN KISHINCHAND C HELARAM (SUPRA) 16. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND, THEREFORE, ADDITI ON CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH STATEMENT OF ROHIT PANWAL A ALONE. WE ACCEPT THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. AR THAT ALL THE CONC ERNS FROM WHOM ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE MADE PURCHASES OF C OLOUR AND CHEMICALS ARE OWNED BY DIFFERENT PERSONS. IT WA S INCUMBENT ON THE AO TO CALL THESE PERSONS OR PROVE THAT THEY WERE NON- EXISTENT. IF THERE ARE SOME EXISTING OWNERS OF THES E CONCERNS THEN THEIR STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED AND THESE PERSONS SHOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN OFFERED FOR CROSS-EXA MINATION. THE STATEMENT OF ANY OTHER PERSON CLAIMING TO BE TH E OWNER OF THESE CONCERNS APPLYING TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CASE CANNOT BE BLINDLY RELIED UPON WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE OSTENSI BLE OWNER. SINCE NO ENQUIRY/INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT INTO THE EXISTENCE OF OSTENSIBLE OWNER THE RELIANCE OF THE A O MERELY ON THE STATEMENT OF ROHIT PANWALA IS VITIATED. I.T.A.NO. 2170/AHD/2008 9 17. EVEN ON FACTS, IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT ASSES SEE DOES NOT REQUIRE COLOUR /CHEMICALS TO THE EXTENT IT HAS SHOW N TO BE CONSUMED. NO TECHNICAL OR COMPARATIVE DATA IS BROUG HT INTO RECORD TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE IN FACT DID NOT REQUIR E COLOUR AND CHEMICALS TO THE EXTENT IT HAS SHOWN THE PURCHASES AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO PERSUASIVE SPAN IN THE ARGUM ENT THAT THESE PURCHASES ARE BOGUS. 18. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THIS ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOW ING PURCHASES FROM THESE CONCERNS IN THE PAST AND IT HA S BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS SUCH. IF GP DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CURRENT YEAR IS BETTER AS COMPARED TO G P RATE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR WHEN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANC ES EXISTED AND WHERE APPARENT STATE OF AFFAIRS OF STATEMENT HA S BEEN ACCEPTED THEN THERE IS NO REASON TO DISTURB SUCH ST ATE OF AFFAIRS THIS YEAR. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT PURCHASES MADE FROM ROHIT PANWAL A AS BOGUS AND ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY MADE. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE CASE MADE OUT BY THE REVENUE IS NOT STRONG THOUGH FOR SUSTAINING ADDITION. HOWSOEVER S TRONG THE SUSPICION MAY BE, BUT ADDITIONS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED MERELY ON THI S BASIS. FIRSTLY, ROHIT PANWALA HAS NOT STATED THAT IT HAS NOT SOLD ANY GOO DS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN PARTICULAR, THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN T AKEN. SECONDLY, IT HAS NOT STATED AS TO WHOM THE CASH TAKEN WAS RETURNED. 3RD LY ASSESSEE WAS NOT OFFERED OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE IF ADDITION WA S TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ROHIT PANWALA. THUS, THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE CLEARLY VIOLATED. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT GOODS HAD ACTUALLY NOT BEEN DISPATCHED TO THE ASSES SEE AND THAT ENTRIES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RECORD ABOUT RECEIPT OF GOOD S ARE BOGUS. STATEMENT OF I.T.A.NO. 2170/AHD/2008 10 VARIOUS OTHER PERSONS CONNECTED WITH THE TRANSACTIO N ARE NOT RECORDED SO AS TO SUPPORT THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI ROHIT PANWAL A. ENTRIES FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF SHRI ROHIT PANWALA ARE NOT EXAMINED SO AS TO SHOW AS TO WHEN THE CASH WAS WITHDRAWN AND HOW THE PARTICULAR DETAI LS ARE CONNECTED WITH THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN ANY CASE, THE ISSUE IS NOW SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUMAN SILK MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) AND, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROU ND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 9. THE 2 ND ISSUE IS ABOUT ADDITION OF RS.5,11,280/- FOR WORK IN PROGRESS. THE A.O. CALCULATED WORK IN PROGRESS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, AS UNDER: AVERAGE GREY CLOTH PROCESSED PER MOTH (BASED ON LAST QUARTERS GREY PROCESSED) 18,93,657 MTRS. PER DAY GREY CLOTH PROCESSED 63,121 MTRS PRODUCTION FOR 10 DAYS (FROM 1.4.2004 TO10.4.2004) 631210 MTRS. TAKING 50% OF AVERAGE JOB CHARGES OF RS.3,24 I.E. RS.1.62 VALUE OF WIP RS.10,22,560 10. HE MENTIONED THAT ACCOUNTING STANDARD 9 NOTIFIE D BY ICAI SPECIFIES METHOD OF REVENUE RECOGNITION. THE ASSESSEE HAS BO OKED EXPENSES BUT NO CORRESPONDING INCOME BY WAY OF WIP HAS BEEN SHOWN. HE ACCORDINGLY PROPOSED AN ADDITION OF RS.10,22,560/- UNDER THE HE AD SUPPRESSED WIP THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, CALCULATED WIP AT RS.5,11,280/ - AS UNDER: 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE A PPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE AO. THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLAN T THAT IT IS NOT SHOWING BOTH OPENING WORK IN PROGRESS AND CLOSI NG WORK IN I.T.A.NO. 2170/AHD/2008 11 PROGRESS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD. [ 188 ITR 44] HAS STAT ED AS UNDER; 'THE TRUE PURPOSE OF CREDITING THE VALUE OF UNSOLD STOCK IS TO BALANCE THE COST OF THOSE GOODS ENTERED ON TH E OTHER SIDE OF THE ACCOUNT AT THE TIME OF THEIR PURCHASE, SO THAT THE CANCELING OUT OF THE ENTRIES RELATING TO THE SA ME STOCK FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE ACCOUNT WOULD LEAVE ONLY TRANSACTIONS ON WHICH THERE HAVE BEEN ACTUAL SALES IN THE COURSE OF THE YEAR SHOWING THE PROFIT OR LOSS ACTUA LLY REALIZED ON THE YEAR'S TRADING....' 'IT IS ONLY THE RIGHT, BUT THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE BOOKS DISCLOSE THE TRUE STATE OF ACCOUNTS AND THE CORRECT INCOME CAN BE DEDUCED THEREFROM. IT IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THE OFFICER IS BOUND TO ACCEPT THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOY ED BY THE ASSESSEE THE CORRECTNESS OF WHICH HAD NOT BE EN QUESTIONED IN THE PAST. THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL IN THE SE MATTERS AND THE OFFICER IS NOT BOUND BY THE METHOD FOLLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS '. 3.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT SINCE THE LABOUR COST OF COLOUR AND CHEMICALS, POWER AND FUEL EXPENSES HAVE BEEN DEBITED BUT THE CLOSING STOCK HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN SO THE COR RECT PROFITS ARE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NOT G IVEN ANY BASIS TO SAY THAT THE PROCESS IS OF 10 DAYS CYCLE. NORMALLY IT IS KNOW IN SURAT THAT THE PROCESS OF FABRICS IS OF FIV E DAYS CYCLE. SINCE AS PER THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF BRITISH PAINTS (SUPRA), CLOSING STOCK OF WORK IN PR OGRESS HAS TO HE SHOWN, THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS TOTALLY REJECTED. THIS ADDITION OF WORK IN PROGRESS IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY T HE FACT THAT THERE IS A LOW GP. IF THE LAST YEAR'S GP IS ADOPTED THEN THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PROFIT LESS BY RS.30 LACS AT LEAST. BOTH THE ADDITIONS OF GROUND NO. 1 AND GROUND NO.2 TOGETHER CONIES TO APPROXIMATELY RS.24 LACS WHICH IS LESS THAN THE SHO RTAGE IN PROFIT AS STATED ABOVE OF RS.30 LACS IF COMPARED WI TH LAST YEAR. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED BOGUS PUR CHASES SHOWS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT RELIABLE. THEREF ORE, THIS ADDITION IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE FALL IN GP. HOWEV ER, WITH RESPECT TO THE CALCULATION IN RESPECT OF 10 DAYS, F IVE DAYS CYCLE IS ADOPTED AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O IS I.T.A.NO. 2170/AHD/2008 12 REDUCED TO HALF. THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED TO THE E XTENT OF RS.5,1L,280/-. WITH THIS ADDITION BEING CONFIRMED T HE GP RATE OF THE ASSESSEE STILL REMAINS MUCH LOWER THAN THAT OF LAST YEAR. HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A.R. IS THAT NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED WIP CAN BE DONE BECAUSE SIMILAR ADJUSTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE CASE OF OPENING STOCK ALSO IF PARTICULAR MET HOD IS BEING FOLLOWED BY THE A.O. IN ANY CASE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING T HE METHOD OF VALUATION FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DOUBT ED. FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, THE A.O. SHOULD NOT HAVE DISTURBED THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OF CLOSING STOCK FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSE E. IN ANY CASE, ACCORDING TO LD. A.R., THE ISSUE IS NOW COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA ART SILK CLOTH PVT. LTD. WHERE FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN ITO VS RISHABH DYEING AND PRINTING MILL S P. LTD. IN I.T.A. NO. 1823/A/2007 PRONOUNCED ON 20.08.2010, IN THE CASE O F WARDHMAN FABRICS PVT. LTD. VS CIT IN I.T.A. NO. 794/A/08 PRONOUNCED ON 28.05.2010 AND IN THE CASE OF BAJAJ FINANCE PVT. LTD .VS. DCIT IN I.T .A. NO. 3635,3636/A/08 PRONOUNCED ON 24.07.2009. IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA ART SILK CLOTH P. LTD. (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED V IEW, THE CASE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE LATEST DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S RISHABH DYEING & PRINTING MILL S (P) LTD. (SUPRA). IN THAT JUDGMENT THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 3. AGAINST THIS LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ISSU E HAD COME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRATIK PROC ESSORS PVT. LTD V DCIT IN ITA NO.1956/AHD/2007, WHEREIN TRIBUNA L HAS HELD THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY WORK-IN-PROGRESS IN A CASE WHERE I.T.A.NO. 2170/AHD/2008 13 BUSINESS OF DYEING AND PRIMING OF CLOTH IS DONE ON JOB WORK BASIS. HE REFERRED TO PARA-6 FROM THAT ORDER AS UND ER:- '6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH THE REPRESENTATIVES AGREED THE SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 2649/AHD/2006 IN THE CASE OF VIPUL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. V/S ACIT ORDER D ATED 17.9.2003 IN THE SAID CASE, WHEN IN THE SAID CASE THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DYEING AND PRINTING OF CLOTH ON JOB WOR K BASIS AND WHERE THE ASSESSES HAD NOT SHOWN ANY WORK-IN-PROGRESS AT THE YEAR END, THE SAME WAS ESTIMATED TO BE 50% OF THE JOB RECEIPT OF THE L IKELY STOCK REMAINING IN PROCESS. HOWEVER WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY O BSERVING AS UNDER: 12 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACT OF THE C ASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ID AR. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF ESTIMATED WORK IN PROGRESS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS A JOB- WORKER AND PROCESS GREY CLOTH FOR ITS CUSTOMERS A CCORDING TO THEIR REQUIREMENT. THE APPELLANT NOT ENGAGED IN ANY MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES OF ITS OWN. THE CLOTH PROCESSED BY THE APPELLANT TH US BELONG TO ITS CUSTOMERS IS PROCESSED BY THE APPELLANT AND. AFTER PROCESSING THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUSTOMERS REQUIREMENT, IT IS RETURNED. IN THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE THE QUESTION OF SHOWING ANY WORK IN PROGRESS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THE CLOTH BELONGING TO ITS CUSTOMERS DID NOT ARISE AS SUCH CLOTH WAS REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN IN THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE CONCERNED CUSTOMERS. ON T HE BASIS OF THE COMPLETION OF WORK ON THE CUSTOMERS CLOTH, THE APP ELLANT IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ITS WORK CHARGES. NO INTERIM PAYMEN TS OR ADVANCES PAYMENTS ARE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM ITS C USTOMERS DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE JOB WORK. THE RECEIPTS FROM THE JOB WORK ARE BEING ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE APPELLANT ON COMPLETED CONTRAC T METHOD AS PER AS-9. THE CLOSING STOCK OF MATERIALS USED FOR PROCESSING OF CLOTH, I.E. COLOUR, CHEMICALS ETC. HAVE BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE APPELLANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AS-9 IN REGARD TO THE VALUE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE APPELLANT ON THE CUSTOMER'S CLOTH, WHICH MAY HAVE B EEN AT DIFFERENT INTERMEDIATE STAGES OF PROCESSING AS ON 31.3.2003, NEITHER ANY OPENING STOCK NOR CLOSING STOCK WAS EVER SHOWN BY THE APPEL LANT. A S PER THE PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTING LAID DOWN BY THE ICAI, UND ER THE SCOPE OF VALUATION OF INVENTORIES IN ITEM 1 (SUB-ITEM (B) OF AS-2 (REVISED) THE 'WORK-IN-PROGRESS ARISING IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS OF SERVI CE PROVIDER' HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY SCOPED OUT OF THE S AID STATEMENT. FURTHER, IN THE DEFINITIONS PROVIDED UNDER ITEM 3 OF THE AS- 2 'INVENTORIES' HAVE BEEN DEFINED AS 'ASSETS (A) HELD FOR SALE M THE ORD INARY COURSE OF BUSINESS (B) IN THE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION, FOR SUCH SALE' OR (C) IN THE FORM OF MATERIALS OR SUPPLIES TO BE CONSUMED IN THE PRODUCT ION FOR SALE' OR IN THE RENDERING OF SERVICES. SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE OF THE PROCESSED CLOTH OR IN THE PRODUCTION FOR SALE OF THE PROCESSED CLOTH BUT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RENDERING OF SERVICES FOR I.T.A.NO. 2170/AHD/2008 14 PROCESSING OF GREY CLOTH FOR ITS CUSTOMERS THE PRIN CIPLES LAID DOWN IN AS-2 FOR THE 'VALUATION OF INVENTORIES' WERE NOT APPLICA BLE IN ITS CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITEM L(B) THEREOF. HOWEVER, THE MAT ERIALS OR SUPPLIES TO BE CONSUMED IN THE PRODUCTION PROCESS OR IN THE REN DERING OF SERVICES WOULD EVIDENTLY FAIL IN CATEGORY (C) OF THE AFORESA ID DEFINITIONS' PROVIDED IN ITEM 3 OF THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN AS-2, AND THE SAME WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY IT IN THE FORM OF STOCK, WHICH HAS BEEN DONE IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE METHOD OF AC COUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT IS THUS SEEN TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE ICAI. 13 IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE AFORESAID METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OF OPENING/CLOSING STOCK HAS BEEN REGULARLY AND CONSIS TENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY SINCE THE BELONGING THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED, THE ACCOUNTING POLICY OF RECOGNIZING REVE NUE OF COMPLETED CONTRACT METHOD. WHILE THE PRINCIPLES OF RES-JUDICA TA ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE COURTS IN SEVERAL JUDGMENTS: THAT, WHERE THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN FOLLO WING REGULAR SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING SINCE THE LAST SO MANY YEARS AN SUCH MET HOD WAS BASED ON ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTING THERE WAS NO JUST IFICATION FOR REJECTING THE SAID METHOD FOR VALUATION OF STOCK. THIS WOULD ESPECIALLY HOLD IN A CASE WHERE THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF VAL UATION IS FOUND TO HAVE NO IMPACT, AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, IF THE CHAN GED METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE APPLIED FOR VALUATION OF THE OPENING AS WELL AS THE CLOSING STOCK. 14 FOR REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE M DETAILS, M MY OPIN ION THERE WAS NO BASIS OR JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING THE ANY ESTIMATED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS IS THIS CASE. THE ADDITION OF RS.1 2.56.970/- MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF ESTIMATED WORK IN PROGRESS IS THER EFORE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED ' THUS DELETION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THER EFORE IN, THE PRESENT CASE ALSO FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ADDITION ON AC COUNT OF ESTIMATED VALUE OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 4. LD SR. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT IF A SSESSES HAS SPENT MONEY WHICH HAS BEEN DEBITED IN THE PROFI T & LOSS ACCOUNT AND TO THE EXTENT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT GET RECEIPT FROM THE PRINCIPLE, WORK-IN-PROGRESS SHOULD BE ESTIMATED . I.T.A.NO. 2170/AHD/2008 15 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE P ARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ISSUE IS NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRATIK PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) PRONOUNCED ON 15.01.20 10. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER WE DISMISS T HE GROUND NO.1 & 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 13. THE LAST GROUND IS ABOUT INVOKING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND WAS NOT SERIOUSLY CONTESTED B Y THE LD. A.R. AND HENCE THE SAME IS REJECTED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 15. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MAY, 2011. SD./- SD./- (D.K.TYAGI) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED : 31 ST MAY, 2011 SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD 6. THE GUARD FILE I.T.A.NO. 2170/AHD/2008 16 1. DATE OF DICTATION 26.05.11 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 27.05.11. OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S.30.5.11 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 31.05.11 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.31.05.11 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 31.0 5.11 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. ..