The ACIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Frontline Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2326/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1670 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAMES KURIEN
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Business income; Business expenditure; Proportionate interest; Commercial expediency
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 142(1); 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM, & SHRI MANISH BORA D, AM. ITA NO.2326/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR: 2008-09 ACIT, CIR-6, AHMEDABAD VS. FRONTLINE CORPORATION LTD., 4 TH FLOOR, SHALIN BUILDING, NR. NEHRU BRIDGE CORNER, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AAACF2403M APPELLANT BY SHRI JAMES KURIEN, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI P. F. JAIN, AR DATE OF HEARING: 4/5/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06/05/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-V III, AHMEDABAD DATED 4.7.2011. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR ASST. YEAR 2008-09 WAS FRAMED ON 30 TH DECEMBER, 2010 BY DCIT, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECO RDS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF TRANSPORTATION, GENERATION OF POWER THROUGH WIND MI LL, TRADING OF AUTO COMPONENTS AND MANUFACTURING OF REFRACTORY BRICKS. RETURN OF ITA NO. 2326/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 2 INCOME WAS E-FILED ON 22.01.2009 SHOWING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.31,86,344/-. CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSE SSMENT. NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 26.8.2009 AND D ULY SERVED. NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT, ALONG WITH QUESTIONNA IRE WAS ISSUED ON 19.5.2010 AND 13.08.2010. CASE WAS DISCUSSED AND AS SESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT RS.91,78,364/- AFTER MAKING ADDITI ON OF RS.59,92,020/-. 3. APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BROUGHT PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL. 4. GROUND NO.1 IS AS UNDER :- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 36(L)(VA) OF RS. 59,7 84/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING FACT THAT EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION IS N OT COVERED U/S 43B BUT IT IS COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 6(L)(VA) R.W.S 2(24)(X). 5. AT THE OUTSET LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS GROUND IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (GSRTC) (2014) 366 ITR 170 (GUJ) WHICH IS HELD IN FAVOUR OF REVENU E. 6. NO OBJECTION WAS RAISED BY LD. AR. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GSRTC (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR. THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELE TING THE ITA NO. 2326/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 3 DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT OF RS.59,784/- FOR EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION. FROM GOING THROUGH THE RECO RDS WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE CREDITED THE AMOUNT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION IN THE BOOKS AND DELAYED IN DEPOSITING THE SAME WITH P F/ESI DEPARTMENT WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT. LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEPO SIT PF ON A MONTHLY BASIS BUT IN RESPECT OF PF DEDUCTED AT RS.5 9,784/- THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED AFTER THE DUE DATE OF PAYMENT AND CLA IMED THE SAME TO BE DEDUCTIBLE U/S 43B OF THE ACT TO HAVE BEEN DE POSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN. HOWEVER, HON. JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GSRTC (SUPRA) DEALING WITH T HIS ISSUE HAS HELD AS UNDER :- '8.00. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND FOR THE REASONS STA TED ABOVE, AND CONSIDERING SECTION 36(1 )(VA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH SU B-CLAUSE (X) OF CLAUSE 24 OF SECTION 2, IT IS HELD THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES TO WHICH PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE (X) OF CLAUSE (24) OF SECTION (2) APPLIES, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTIO N IN COMPUTING THE INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 28 WITH RESPECT TO SUCH SUM CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EMPLOYEES' ACCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND OR FUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE 'DUE DATE' MENTIONED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1 )(VA). CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS HELD THAT THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN DELETING RESPECTIVE DISALLOWANCES BEIN G EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO PF ACCOUNT / ESI ACCOUNT MADE BY THE AO AS, AS SUCH, S UCH SUMS WERE NO! CREDITED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE TO THE EMPLOYEES' ACCOUNTS IN THE RELEVANT FUND OR FUNDS (IN THE PRESENT CASE PROVIDENT FUND AND/OR ESI FUND ON OR B EFORE THE DUE DATE AS PER THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1 )(VA) OF THE ACT I.E. D ATE BY WHICH THE CONCERNED ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED AS AN EMPLOYER TO CREDIT EMPLOYEES' CO NTRIBUTION TO THE EMPLOYEES' ACCOUNT IN THE PROVIDENT FUND UNDER THE PROVIDENT F UND ACT AND/OR IN THE ESI FUND UNDER THE ESI ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED AND THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE S MADE BY THE AO ARE HEREBY QUASHED AND SET ASIDE AND THE DISALLOWANCES OF THE RESPECTIVE SUMS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROVIDENT FUND / ESI FUND MADE BY THE AO IS HER EBY RESTORED. THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN PRESENT APPEAL ARE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. WITH THIS, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ' ITA NO. 2326/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 4 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF HON . JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. ASSESSING OF FICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT A T RS.59,784/- IN REGARD TO EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION DEPOSIT BEYOND DUE DATE OF PAYMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS ALL OWED. 9. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER :- 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OF RS. 2,42,500/- 10. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, LD . ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THERE STOOD LOAN AND ADVANCES TO WGF FINANCES SERVICES LTD. AND INDIA TELECOM LTD. TOTAL ING TO RS.24,25,000/- AND THERE WAS AN INTEREST EXPENDITUR E DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AT RS.3,79,20,116/-. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ON ONE HAND ASSESSEE IS HAVING HUGE B ORROWED FUNDS AND ON THE OTHER HAND ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LOANS AND ADVANCES WITHOUT ANY BUSINESS PURPOSES AT RS.24,25,000/- AND , THEREFORE, DISALLOWED 10% OF LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN AS PROPO RTIONATE INTEREST AT RS.24,25,000/-. 11. IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), DISALLOWANCE OF RS .24,25,000/- WAS DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 2226/AHD/20 07 & ITA NO.2527/AHD/2007 FOR ASST. YEAR 2003-04. ITA NO. 2326/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 5 12. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 13. THE FACT WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE TH AT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BEN CH IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 2226/AHD/2007 & ITA NO.2527/AHD /2007 FOR ASST. YEAR 2003-04. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. REVENUE HAS RAISED THE GROUND AGAINST TH E ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE INTEREST PROPORTIONATE BASI S AT RS.24,25,000/-. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.24,25,000/- WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT BORROW ED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR GIVING INTEREST FREE LOANS AND AD VANCES FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES. HOWEVER, FROM GOING THROUGH THE DECISION OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 2226/AHD/2007 & ITA NO.25 27/AHD/2007 FOR ASST. YEAR 2003-04 WE OBSERVE THAT THIS ISSUE O F DISALLOWANCE ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS HAS COME UP BEFORE THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR COUPLE OF TIMES AND IT HAS BEE N HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE WAS SUSTAINABLE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND IN DECIDING SO CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 10. ISSUE NO.3: THE REVENUE ON GROUND NO.2 CHALLENG ED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,70,494/-. THE AO FOUND THAT CAPITAL ADVANCE OF RS.49,57,000/- WAS OUTSTANDING AS ADVANCE TO VARIOU S PARTIES ON WHICH NO INTEREST WAS CHARGED. IT ITA NO.2226 AND 2527/AHD/2007 M/S. FRON TLINE CORPORATION LTD. 6 WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVE THAT THE SAID ADVAN CE WAS OUT OF OWN FUNDS AND NOT RELATABLE TO BORROWED FUNDS. PROPORTIONATE DISALLOW ANCE WAS MADE IN A SUM OF RS.6,70,494/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT DISALLOWANCE WAS PURELY NOTIONAL DISALLOWANCE AND THAT THERE WAS NO NEXUS B ETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND ADVANCES AND IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR SIMIL AR DISALLOWANCE WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PRECEDING ITA NO. 2326/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR NOTED THAT IN FACT THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE HAS COME DOWN FROM RS.79,28,000/- TO RS.49,57,000/-. HE, THEREFORE AGR EED WITH THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR THAT NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE. THE ADVANCES WE RE ALSO NOT FOUND FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED TH E DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE VIDE ORDER DATED 12-03-2010 IN PARA 27 TO 30. THE LEARNED DR DID NOT DISPUTE THIS FACT. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BECAUSE THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE HAS BEEN RED UCED FROM THE EARLIER YEARS. SINCE IN THE EARLIER YEAR SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN DELE TED, THEREFORE, ON THE REDUCED OUTSTANDING BALANCE NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 15. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT CO-ORDINATE BENCH DEALT THIS ISSUE IN ITA NO.1091/AHD/2005 FOR ASST. YEAR 2001-02 AND ITA NO.4329/AHD/2007 FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05, WHEREIN TH ERE WERE ADVANCES TO INDIA TELECOM LTD. AT RS.1,0,00,000/- A ND TO WGF FINANCIAL SERVICES AT RS.14,75,000/- RESPECTIVELY A S ON 31.3.2004 AND CO-ORDINATE BENCH DISMISSED THE GROUND RAISED B Y THE REVENUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 27. NEXT GROUND NO. 2 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,78,682/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON CAPITAL ADV ANCES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES: (IN RS.) INDIA TELECOM LTD. 10,00,000/- WGF FINANCIAL SERVICES 14,25,000/- GORDHANBHAI MANOHARE 32,500/- IFFCO 84,200/- COD 10,000/- . ACCORDING TO THE AO, SINCE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS H AD BEEN UTILIZED FOR GIVING AFORESAID INTEREST FREE ADVANCES WHILE THESE HAD NOT BEEN GIV EN DURING THE COURSE OF NORMAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REGISTER ED AS A NBFC NOR WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS UTILIZED FOR AFORESAID ADVANCES. THE ITA NO.1 091/AHD/2005& ITA NO.4329,3451&4258/AHD/2007 13 AO FURTHER NOTICED TH AT THE ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST OF RS. 1,73,89,717/- ON THE LOANS OF RS. 24,83,35,637/ - AS ON 31.3.2004. ACCORDINGLY, THE ITA NO. 2326/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 7 AO DISALLOWED PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OF RS.1,78,682 /- ,RELYING ,INTER ALIA, ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PRMS RAMNATHAN CHETTIAR VS. CIT,72 I TR 534(MAD.) AND MSP RAJA VS. CIT,105 ITR 295(MAD.) 28. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE WA S NO NEXUS BETWEEN BORROWED FUNDS AND AFORESAID ADVANCES WHILE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE I N THE AY 2001-02 & 2003-04 HAD BEEN DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED T HE DISALLOWANCE IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: 5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE CAREFULLY. ADVANCES ARE OUTSTANDING IN THE NAMES OF SOME PARTIES WHICH WERE CONSIDERED FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AS WELL. IN FACT THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE HAS COME DOWN FROM RS.49.57 LAC S TO RS.25.52 LACS. FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-VIII FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, I HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(III) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN T HE ABSENCE OF FINDING TO THE CONTRARY. THE ADVANCES WERE ALSO NOT FOR NONBUSINES S PURPOSE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THE ADDITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 29. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO WI THOUT INFORMING THE FATE OF EARLIER ORDER RELIED ON BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN FURTHER APPEAL . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF TH E LD. CIT(A) WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SA BUILDERS 288 ITR 1 (SC). 30 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPON ORDERS OF HIS PREDECESSO R FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL THAT THE SAID ORD ERS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE BEEN REVERSED IN FURTHER APPEAL. EVEN OTHERWISE, TH E LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT ADVANCES WERE NOT FOR NONBUSINESS PURPOSES. IN THIS CONNECTION, HONBLE APEX COURT IN SA BUILDERS 288 ITR 1 (SC), ITA NO.1091/AHD/2005& ITA NO.4329,3 451&4258/AHD/2007 14 HAVE HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INCURRE D UNDER ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION, BUT YET IT IS ALLOWABLE AS A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE IF IT WAS INCURRED ON GROUNDS OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. IN THE LIGHT OF VIEW TAKEN IN THE AFORE SAID DECISION BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ADVANCES WE RE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 16. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF CO-ORDI NATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LOOKING TO THE PAST HISTORY OF DECISIONS BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IT HAS BEEN R EPEATEDLY HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR ON ACCOUNT OF PR OPORTIONATE ITA NO. 2326/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 8 DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST FOR APPLICATION OF BORROWE D FUNDS TO INTEREST FREE LOANS AND ADVANCES AND THEREFORE, FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ALSO WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE. 17. GROUND NO.3 OF REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER :- 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT SHORTAGE OF RS. 1,84,570/- WITHOUT APPRE CIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SHORTAGE. 18. DURING VERIFICATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AUDIT REPORT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS FURNISHED THERE WAS A SHORTAGE OF 1111 AUTOMOBILE PARTS AND H E WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE THAT TOTAL SHO RTAGE DURING THE YEAR WAS JUST 0.13% OF TOTAL SALES OF 825262 NOS. AND AC CORDINGLY WENT AHEAD BY APPLYING AVERAGE PRICE VALUE OF RS.184570/ - TO THE SHORTAGE OF GOODS AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 19. ON APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE SAID ADDITION WAS DELETED. 20. REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 21. LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER . 22. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SHORTA GE OF 1111 NO. OF ITEMS OF AUTOMOBILE PARTS WAS JUST 0.13% OF TOTA L SALES OF 825262 NOS. AND THIS BEING A NORMAL SHORTAGE IN THE COURSE OF RUNNING OF ITA NO. 2326/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 9 REGULAR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES DUE TO TYPES AND SIZE A ND SPECIFICATION OF COMPONENTS RESULTING INTO EXCESS DELIVERY AND IN SO ME CASES THERE ALSO HAPPENS PILFERAGE AND THEFT WHICH COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. AS THE SHORTAGES ARE MEAGRE. LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETE D THE ADDITION OF RS. 184570/-. 23. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE DELETION O F ADDITION OF RS. 184570/- FOR SHORTAGE OF AUTOMOBILE PARTS. FROM GOI NG THROUGH THE RECORDS, WE OBSERVE THAT SHORT WAS DULY SHOWN IN TH E QUANTITATIVE DETAILS FORMING PART OF TAX AUDIT REPORT SHOWING TH EREIN A SHORTAGE OF 1111 NUMBER OF PARTS. WE HOWEVER, OBSERVE THAT COMP LETE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED AND NO DE FECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT TOTAL NUMBER O F 825262 NOS. OF COMPONENTS WERE SOLD DURING THE YEAR AND IN PERCENT AGE TERMS THE SHORTAGE IS JUST 0.13% OF THE TOTAL ITEMS SOLD. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ESTIMATED ADDITION WITHOUT CORROBORATING THE FACTS WITH THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NOT POINTING OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE QUANTITATIV E PURCHASE AND SALE NOR ANY DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE MAN UFACTURING ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT APPRE CIATING THE FACT THAT WHILE CONDUCTING BUSINESS OF ITEMS WHICH ARE H UGE IN NUMBERS, A MINOR SHORTAGE ON ACCOUNT OF PILFERAGE, HANDLING, W EAR AND TEAR ETC. CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGH TLY DELETED THE ADDITION AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A) RELATING TO THIS GROUND. THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 2326/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 10 24. GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER :- 4. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DIESEL EXPENSES AND TRIP AND BHATTA EXPENSES OF RS. 27,64,867 OUT OF RS. 41,47,300/-. 25. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPARING THE DIESE L EXPENSES AND TRIP BHATTA EXPENSES TO THE TOTAL REVENUE ON ACCOUN T OF TRANSPORT OPERATION INCOME, OBSERVE THAT PERCENTAGE OF EXPEND ITURE HAS SHARPLY INCREASED AS COMPARED TO THE TURNOVER OF TH E ASSESSEE AND FURTHER TRIP BHATTA CHARGES WERE BOOKED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT WITH THE SELF GENERATED INVOICES AND THEREFORE, LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND NATURE OF BUSINESS OF DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE TO TAL EXPENDITURE OF TRIP BHATTA AND DIESEL EXPENSES WHICH WAS CALCULATE D AT RS.4147300/-. 26. ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD . ASSESSING OFFICER, BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO GAVE PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 7.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE FAC TS ON RECORD REGARDING THIS ISSUE. BEFORE ME, THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT ALL THE DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 03.11.2010 & 15 .12.2010, BEFORE THE DCIT AND THE ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED BY INTERNAL AS WELL AS STATUT ORY AUDITORS AND AUTHENTICATED AND THE DISALLOWANCE WAS AD HOC AND ARBITRARY. THE SAME ARGUMENTS WERE PUT FORTH AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE OF TRIP AND BHATTA EXPENSES. A T THIS STAGE THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO ANALYZE THE TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED WITH REFERENC E TO THE PRECEDING YEAR AND ALSO INCREASE IN DIESEL PRICES. TO THIS, THE APPELLANT F ILED A DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE LINE OF LETTER SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HIGHLIGHTING THE FACT THAT THE RATIO OF TOTAL EXPENSE TO TRANSPORT INCOME HAS DECLINED DURING THE YEAR TO 60.10% FROM 62.47% SHOWING A DECLINE OF 2.37% IN THE RATIO OF EXPENSE TO INCOME. THUS, ACCORDING TO APPELLANT OVERALL THERE IS GROWTH IN T HE PROFIT AND THEREFORE NO ARTIFICIAL OR ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE CAN BE CONFIRMED. 7.5 I HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT PORTION OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN EXPLANATIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO A FTER CONSIDERING THE INCREASE IN FUEL ITA NO. 2326/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 11 COST AND MIXED NATURE OF ACCOUNTS DISALLOWED 10% OF TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED ON TRIP AND BHATTA CHARGES AND DIESEL EXPENSES THEREBY MAKING T OTAL ADDITION OF RS. 4147300/-. ADMITTEDLY, THERE WERE LOWER TRUCK OPERATIONS DURIN G THE YEAR. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THER E IS FALL IN THE RATIO OF IMPUGNED EXPENSES TO INCOME . HOWEVER, THE FACTS REMAIN THAT THE TRIP EXPENSES AND DIESEL EXPENSES WERE ON THE BASIS OF SELF-MADE VOUCHERS SI GNED BY THE DRIVERS AND CLEANERS..IN'.'A BUSINESS LIKE THIS WHERE ALL SUCM EXPENSES ARE NOT VERIFIABLE IT IS ONLY A REASONABLE APPRECIATION OF OVER ALL FACTS THAT CAN* DECIDE THE ISSUE. THE DISALLOWANCE EFFECTED BY THE AO WAS AT 10% OF TOTAL CLAIM, WHICH IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. THE CURRENT YEAR OPERATIONAL RESULTS BEING ON LOWER SIDE VIS-A- VIS LOW RATIO OF SUCH EXPENSES TO INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ALSO TH E CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT FREIGHT RATES, MOST OF WHICH ARE ON RATE CONTRACT BASIS CAN NOT BE INCREASED INSTANTLY COMMENSURATE WITH DIESEL EXPENSES, CANNOT BE IGNORE D FULLY. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ON THE SIMILAR FACTS IN THE JUDGEMENT OF IT AT IN I TA NO. 2226&2527/AHD/2007 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE, THE RELIEF GRAN TED BY MY PREDECESSOR IN A.Y. 2003- 04 WAS CONFIRMED TO THE EXTENT OF 2/3 RD OF SUCH ADDITION. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITION PRESENTLY MADE IS ALSO ON ESTIMATION BASIS WITHOUT ANY FINDING. IN RESPECTFUL AGREEMENT WITH MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR AND ALSO ORDE R OF HON'BLE ITAT BENCH IN THE SAME CASE, I DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOW ANCE AT RS. 1 3,82,433/- BEING 1/3 RD OF DISALLOWANCE MADE OF RS. 41.47.300/- AND THAT A REL IEF OF RS. 27,64,8677- BEING 2/3 RD OF THE DISALLOWANCE BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT, , 27. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL. 28. LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT SAME ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1091/AHD/2005 FOR ASST. YEAR 2001-02 , ITA NO.4329/AHD/2007 FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05 & IN ITA NO.4258/AHD/2007 FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05 RESPECTIVEL Y AND DISALLOWANCE WAS RESTRICTED TO 1/3 RD OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 28. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.41,74,30 0/- WAS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY DISALLOWING 10% OF TOTAL EXPEN DITURE ON DIESEL EXPENSES AND TRIP BHATTA EXPENSES AT RS.2,99,92,972 /- AND ITA NO. 2326/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 12 RS.1,14,80,023/- RESPECTIVELY, TOTALLING TO RS.4,1 4,72,995/- BY APPLYING A GENERAL VIEW THAT MOST OF THE EXPENSES A RE BOOKED ON THE BASIS OF SELF-GENERATED EVIDENCES. 29. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT SUCH DISALLOWANCE OF DI ESEL EXPENSES AND BHATTA EXPENSES HAD BEEN MADE IN THE PAST ALSO AND THE ISSUE HAD TRAVELLED UPTO THE TRIBUNAL. WE FIND THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO.4329 AND 4258/AHD /2007 FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05 HAS HELD AS UNDER :- '22. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS ALREADY MENTIONED, THE ONUS SQUARELY RESTED UPON THE ASSESS EE TO SATISFY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE EXPENDITURE CONCERNED WAS INCURRED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE LOG BOOK / TRIP REGISTER OR ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM EITHER BEFORE TH E AO / ID. CIT (A) AND EVEN BEFORE US WHILE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR IRTIONATE INCRE ASE IN EXPENDITURE VIS-A-VIS EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE [CEDING YEARS. THEREFORE, THE ID. C IT (A), CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT INPUT COST HAS GONE UP DUE TO RISE IN DIESEL PRICES AND OTHER INFLATION COST, OBSERVED THAT CURRENT YEAR OPERATIONAL RESULTS ARE FOUND TO BE DI FFERENT FROM THE PRECEDING YEAR. TAKING INTO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE FREIGHT RATES WERE ON RATE CONTRACT BASIS WHICH COULD NOT BE INCREASED COMMENSURATE WITH DIESEL EXP ENSES, THE ID. CIT (A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE L/3 RD OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.56.52 LACS. THOUGH THE ID. AR RELIED UPON A DECISION IN THE CASE OF 77 TTJ (AHD) TM 490, IT HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED AS TO HOW THE FACTS OF THE CITED CASE WERE PARALLEL TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INSTANT CASE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE ONUS LAID DOWN UPON THEM BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES AND EVEN BEFORE US. I N THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ESPECIALLY WHEN NEITHER THE ID. AR NOR ID. DR REFERRED US TO ANY MA TERIAL SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER WHILE UNDISPUTEDLY FAC TS RELATING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OBTAININ G IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AS NOTED BY THE ID CIT (A), WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE. THUS, GROUND NO.L IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE & GROUND NO.L IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED.' 30. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN IT A NO.1091/AHD/2005 FOR ASST. YEAR 2001-02 DEALT WITH THE SAME ISSUE, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER :- ITA NO. 2326/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 13 6. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, P ERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD AND ALSO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE LEARNED AR IN A PAPER BOOK (SUPRA). (I) RESTRICTION OF ADDITION TO RS.3.55 LAKHS ON LOW GP: .... ... WE HAVE CAREFULLY ANALYZED THE REASONS SET OUT BY THE CIT (A) IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.3.55 LAKHS AS AGAINST RS.6.94 LA KHS MADE BY THE AO. IT WAS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE'S GP WAS FLUCTUAT ING IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003- 04 TO 2004-05 FROM 36% TO 26.5%. THE AVERAGE GP DUR ING THOSE THREE YEARS WAS IN THE RANGE. OF 36%, AS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE CIT (A) WAS VERY FAIR IN COMIN G TO A CONCLUSION TO ESTIMATE THE GP ON JOB WORK OF THE ASSESSEE AT 36% AND, THER EBY, SLASHING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,94 LAKHS TO RS.3.55 LAKHS. HOWEVER, THE REVENU E HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OR WORKING TO UPSET THE REASONING OF THE CIT (A). IN VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE TEND TO AGREE WITH THE CIT (A) ON THIS I SSUE. IN ESSENCE, NO INTERFERENCE OF THIS BENCH WARRANTED ON THE ISSUE. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ; - (II) DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,91,000 & (III) RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.54,33,872 /- OUT OF TRIP BHATTA AND DIESEL EXPENSES. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT SIMI LAR ISSUES THAT OF THE ISSUES - GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 - UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE CROPP ED UP BEFORE THE EARLIER BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE F OR THE AY 2004-05 CITED SUPRA. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES AS DEL IBERATED UPON THEREIN, THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE HON'BLE EARLIER BENCH ARE EXTRACTED, CHRONOLOGICALLY, AS UNDER: (II) INTEREST ON CAPITAL ADVANCES: '30. WE HAVE HEASRD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROU GH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE LD. CIT (A) RELIED UPON ORDERS OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL THAT THE SAID ORDERS RELIED UPON BY THE ID. CIT (A) HAVE BEEN REVERSED IN FURTHER APPEAL. E VEN OTHERWISE, THE ID. CIT (A) FOUND THAT ADVANCES WERE NOT FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. I N THIS CONNECTION, HON'BLE APEX COURT IN SA BUILDERS 288 ITR 1 (SC) HAVE HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INCURRED UNDER ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION, BUT, YET IT IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE IF IT WAS INCURRED ON GROUNDS OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. I N THE LIGHT OF VIEW TAKEN IN THE AFORESAID DECISION BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT, ESPEC IALLY WHEN THE REVENUE HAVE NOT PLACED BEFORE US ANY MATERIAL CONTRARY TO THE FINDI NGS OF THE ID. CIT (A) THAT THE ADVANCES WERE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE...........' ITA NO. 2326/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 14 (III) RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TRIP BHATTA AND DIESEI EXPENSES: '22. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUG H THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS ALREADY MENTIONED, THE ONUS SQUARELY RESTED UPON THE ASSESS EE TO SATISFY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE EXPENDITURE CONCERNED WAS INCURRED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE LOG BOOK / TRIP REGISTER OR ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM EITHER BEFORE TH E AO / ID. CIT (A) AND EVEN BEFORE US WHILE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR IRTIONATE INCRE ASE IN EXPENDITURE VIS-A-VIS EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE [CEDING YEARS. THEREFORE, THE ID. C IT (A), CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT INPUT COST HAS GONE UP DUE TO RISE IN DIESEL PRICES AND OTHER INFLATION COST, OBSERVED THAT CURRENT YEAR OPERATIONAL RESULTS ARE FOUND TO BE DI FFERENT FROM THE PRECEDING YEAR. TAKING INTO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE FREIGHT RATES WERE ON RATE CONTRACT BASIS WHICH COULD NOT BE INCREASED COMMENSURATE WITH DIESEL EXP ENSES, THE ID. CIT (A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE L/3 RD OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.56.52 LACS. THOUGH THE ID. AR RELIED UPON A DECISION IN THE CASE OF 77 TTJ (AHD) TM 490, IT HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED AS TO HOW THE FACTS OF THE CITED CASE WERE PARALLEL TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INSTANT CASE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE ONUS LAID DOWN UPON THEM BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES AND EVEN BEFORE US. I N THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ESPECIALLY WHEN NEITHER THE ID. AR NOR ID. DR REFERRED US TO ANY MA TERIAL SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER WHILE UNDISPUTEDLY FAC TS RELATING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OBTAININ G IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AS NOTED BY THE ID CIT (A), WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE. THUS, GROUND NO.L IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE & GROUND NO.L IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED.' 30. RESPECTFULLY APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY CO- ORDINATE BENCH ON THE ISSUE WHICH IS VERBATIM SAME IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO DECIDE THAT THE DISALL OWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF TRIP BHATTA AND DIESEL EXPENSES TO BE RESTRICTED TO 1/3 RD OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 41,74,300/-. IN OTHER WORDS, DI SALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) AT RS.13,82,433/- IS UPHELD . IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 31. OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE NEED NO ADJUDICATION. ITA NO. 2326/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 15 32. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH MAY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 6/5/2016 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 04/05/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 06/05/2016 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 6/5/2016 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: