Shri Ghasiram Shyamsunder Chowdhary, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 2537/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1539 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GIRISH MEHTA
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Business income; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Onus to prove
• Section: 45(2); 143(3); 194C; 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT , JM, & SHRI MANISH BORAD , AM. ITA NO.2537/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR: 2006-07 M/S GHASIRAM SHYAMSUNDER CHOWDHARY, 469/5, OPP. MASKATI MARKAT, SAKAR BAZAR KALUPUR, AHMEDABAD. VS. ITO, WAD-2(1), AHMEDABAD. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AAAFG 8180H APPELLANT BY SHRI GIRISH MEHTA, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI MUKESH SHARMA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 19.5.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24/05/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-6, AHMEDABAD, DATED 25/08/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 PASSED AGAINST ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FRAMED ON 29.12.2008 BY ITO WARD 2(1 ), AHMEDABAD. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS, AS CULLED OUT FROM THE REC ORDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF TRADING OF GREY CLOTH, JOB WORK ON OWN GREY CLOTH. RETURN OF I NCOME WAS FILED FOR ITA NO 2537/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 2 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 ON 26.12.2006 DECLARING TOTAL IN COME OF RS.2,05,687/-. CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSES SMENT AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 22.6.200 7. QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED AND NECESSARY INFORMATION AND REPLY WAS SUBMITTED AND THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AF TER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.29,16,603/- AND INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.31,22,290/-. 3. ON APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE GOT PART R ELIEF. 4. NOW ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A). GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF ASSES SEES APPEAL READS AS UNDER :- GROUND NOS.1 & 2 ARE AS UNDER :- 1. THE APPELLANTS SUBMIT THAT THE ID CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE REJECTION OF BOOK RESULT U/S 145(2) BY AO AS PER THE FINDING REC ORDED IN PARA 2.3 OF THE APPEAL ORDER, WHICH IS ILLEGAL AND HENCE THE BOOK RESULT B E ACCEPTED. 2. THE APPELLANTS SUBMIT THAT THE ID CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- OUT OF RS. 6,08,986/- MADE BY THE AO AFTER APPLYING THE AVERAGE GP OF 11.82% AS PER THE FINDING RECORDED IN PARA 2.3 OF THE APPEAL ORDER WHICH IS ILLEGAL AND HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- BE DELETED. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT GROSS PROFIT RATE HAS DECLINE D TO 10.37% IN COMPARISON TO GP RATE OF 13.26% IN ASST. YEAR 2005- 06 AND ALSO OBSERVED FROM THE TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S 44AB OF THE ACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED STOCK REGISTER AND FURT HER OBSERVED THAT THERE WERE SOME VARIATIONS IN THE CLOSING BALANCE O F SUNDRY CREDITORS ITA NO 2537/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 3 WHEN THE SAME WERE COMPARED WITH THE CONFIRMATION L ETTERS RECEIVED THEREFROM AND WAS OF THE VIEW THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S OF ASSESSEE DOES NOT DISCLOSE TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS OF ASSESSEE S BUSINESS AND CORRECT INCOME COULD NOT BE DEDUCED THEREFROM AND R EJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS AND ESTIMATED GP @ 11.82% THEREBY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.6,08,986/- AND WHILE DOING SO OBSERVED THE FOLLO WING :- CONSIDERING THE PREVIOUS YEARS GROSS PROFITS RATIO OF THE ASSESSEE AND EXPERIENCE OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES YEAR TO YEAR THE PERSONS EXPANSE HIS BUSINESS GAINS PROFITS INCREASED AND EXPENSES REDUC ED. ABOVE FACTS CAN BE ANALYSED FROM FIGURE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE-ITSELF. A.Y. TOTAL SALES GROSS PROFIT RATE OF G.P. 2004-05 99,00,050/- 3,52,687/- 3.56% 2005-06 2,16,56,164/- 28,71,046/- 13.26% 2006-07 4,18,62,066/- 43,39,110/- 10.37% ANALYSES OF THE ABOVE CHART IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AS SESSEE'S SALES YEAR TO YEAR INCREASED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN PRODUCED F SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR REDUCING GROSS PROFITS THEREFORE THE ASS ESSEE'S BOOK RESULTS CAN NOT BE RELIED AND ACCEPTABLE. AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S. N. NAMA SIVAVAM CHETTAIR V/S. CIT (38 ITR 579 SO KEEPING A STOCK REGISTER IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE BECAUSE THAT IS MEAN OF VERIFYING THE ASSESSEE'S AC COUNTS BY HAVING A QUANTITATIVE TALLY. THE SAME VIEW WAS REITERATE BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHHABILDAS TRIBHUVANDAS SHAH V/S. CIT ( 59 ITR 733 AND JUSTIFIED REJECTION OF ACCOUNTS IF QUANTITATIVE ACC OUNTS ARE NOT MAINTAINED. IN THE CASE OF PUNJAB TRADING CO. V/S. CIT (53 ITR 335 THEIR LORDSHIP OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HAD HELD THAT:- ' ............... IT IS NOT THE CORRECT VIEW OF LAW THAT IF ACCOUNTS ARE, PRIMA FACIE, REGULARLY AND PROPERLY KEPT AND THE FTO CAN NOT LAY HIS FINGE R ON ANY PARTICULAR FLAW IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTANCY, HE IS BOUND TO ACCEPT THE PR OFIT DISCLOSED BY SUCH ACCOUNTS/ IN A BUSINESS WHICH MERELY CONSISTS OF BUYING RAW M ATERIAL AND SELLING IT AFTER PROCESSING, THE ABSENCE OF A REGISTER SHOWING THE D AILY WORKING OF EACH FACTORY IS ITA NO 2537/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 4 JUST AS MATERIAL AS THE ABSENCE OF A STOCK REGISTER IN THE CASE OF AN ORDINARY MERCHANT, JUSTIFYING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 145 (2). THUS, WHERE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY DAY-T O-DAY RECORD ABOUT THE CONSUMPTION OF ROW COTTON AND PRODUCTION OF GINNED COTTON, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ITO WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING SECTION 145(2) EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD REGULARLY KEPT ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE DULY AUDITED........' THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE COURT SQUARRY AP PLIES TO THE FACTS OF OUR ASSESSEE. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM AND NAQALAND IN THE CASE OF SALES WORTH LTD, V/S. CIT ( 69 ITR 366 BY HOLDING THAT NON-MAINTENANCE OF DAILY CONSUMPTION REGISTER OR PRODUCTION REGISTER, WHICH COULD AFFORD A CHECK AS TO THE ACTUAL PRODUCT ION IN THE ASSESSEE'S FACTORY, MAY JUSTIFY THE DEPARTMENT IN REJECTING TH E ACCOUNTS AND IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME. IN THE CASE OF RAZA TEXTILES LTD, V/S. CIT (86 ITR 673 ALL/). WHERE ASSESSEE-MILL DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY REGISTER FOR SUPPLY OF CLOTH BY ITS SPINNING DEPARTMENT TO WEAVING DEPARTM ENT, REJECTION OF ITS BOOKS RESULTS WAS JUSTIFIED. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF R.M .P. PERIANNA & CO. V/S. CIT (42 ITR 370) HAD INFERRED THAT IF LOW GROSS PROFIT IS COUPLED W ITH OTHER DEFECTS, BOOKS CAN BE REJECTED BUT ONLY GROUND THAT THE G.P. LOW WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ATTRACT SECTION 145 (2) OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD. (188 ITR 44 SCI HAD HELD THAT IT IS NOT ONLY THE RIGHT BUT THE DUTY OF THE A.O, TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE BOOKS DISCL OSED THE TRUE STATE OF ACCOUNTS AND THE CORRECT INCOME CAN BE DEDUCED THEREFORE. IT IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THE OFFICER IS BOUND TO ACCEPT HE SYSTEM TO ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CORRECTNESS OF WHICH HAD NOT BEEN QUE STIONED IN THE PAST THERE IS NO ESTOPPE IN THESE MATTER AND THE OFFICER IS NOT BOUN D BY METHOD FOLLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. MCMILLAN & CO. (33 I TR 182 SC) ALSO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAD HELD THAT THE ITO, EVEN WHEN HE A CCEPTS THE ASSESSEE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, IS NOT BOUND BY THE FIGURE OF PROFIT S SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNTS. KEEPING IN VIEW AND THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE FO REGOING PARAS AND LOOKING TO SUCH IRREGULARITIES, HUGE DISCREPANCIES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED STOCK REGISTER THE ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS CANNOT BE FULLY RELIED UPON. THEREFORE, I AM SATISFIED AND HOLD THA T THE ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DOES NOT PRESENT A TRUE, FAIR AND CORRECT P ICTURE AS ITS AFFAIRS OF PROFESSION OF ACCOUNTANCY IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER AND HENCE CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE REJECTED U/S.1 45(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN PRECEDING PARAS, IT IM MENSELY TRANSPIRES THAT THE \ BOOKS DOES NOT DISCLOSE TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS OF ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS AND CORRECT INCOME CANNOT BE DEDUCED THERE FROM. ACCORD INGLY, BOOKS RESULTS ARE REJECTED. NOW, QUESTION / ARISE WHAT SHOULD BE FAIR ESTIMATION. IF THE G.P. RATE OF ANOTHER FIRM IS ADOPTED, THERE MAY BE DISTINGUIS HABLE AND PECULIAR FEATURES TO THAT FIRM, WHICH MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE AS SESSEE. THEREFORE, IDEAL ITA NO 2537/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 5 ESTIMATION WOULD BE AT THE RATE OF G.P. SHOWN BV TH E ASSESSEE HIMSELF IN OAST. TO BE FAIR ENOUGH TO THE ASSESSEE, AVERAGE RA TE OF G.P. FOR 2 YEARS AS DISCLOSED BV THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE REALISTIC ESTIMA TION. AVERAGE RATE OF TWO YEARS WORKS OUT AT 11.82%.(10.37 + 13.26+2) ACCORDINGLY, TAKING GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 11.82%, THE ESTIMATED GROSS PROFIT W ORKS OUT AT RS. 49,48.0967- (4,18.62,066 X 11.82%) AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 43,39,110/-. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 6,08,986/- (49,4 8,096 - 43,39,110/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E LD. CIT(A) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GP WAS SUSTAINED AT RS.4.5 L ACS BY LD. CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESS MENT ORDER AND APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION. ASSESSING OFFICER HIGHLIGHT ED MANY MISTAKES IN ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO HELD THAT APP ELLANT WAS NOT MAINTAINING STOCK REGISTER. THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS TO THES E DEFICIENCIES ARE NOT SATISFACTORY. ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED UPON SEVERAL DECISIONS AS PER WHICH NON-MAINTENANCE OF STOCK RECORDS IS SUFFICIENT GROU ND FOR REJECTING BOOK RESULT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE REJE CTION OF BOOK RESULT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 145 (2) IS PERFECTL Y IN ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. AFTER REJECTING THE BOOK RESULT, ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT BY WORKING OUT AVERAGE GP OF TWO YEARS INCLUDING TH IS YEAR. IN EARLIER TWO YEARS, APPELLANT HAD LOWER GP AND IF THOSE YEARS WOULD HAVE BEEN IN CLUDED IN ARRIVING AT GP, THERE WOULD NOT .HAVE BEEN ANY A DDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT. BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE GP DISCLOSED BY THE AP PELLANT IS VERY ERRATIC. IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR IT IS AS HIGH AS 13.33% THEREFORE T HE ADDITION MADE BY - THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT FULLY UNJUSTIFIED. HOW EVER CONSIDERING THE GROSS PROFIT IN OTHER YEARS, THE ADDITION IS ON HIGHER SI DE. CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS FACTS, THE ADDITION TO SS PROFIT DISCLOSED BY THE A PPELLANT IS CONFIRMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4.5 LAKHS AS AGAINST RS 608986 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. NOW ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPRECIAT ED THE FACT THAT ITA NO 2537/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 6 TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INCREASED SUBSTANTIALL Y SO MUCH SO THAT IN ASST. YEAR 2004-05 TOTAL SALES I.E. RS.99,00,050 /- WHICH INCREASED TO RS.2,16,56,168/- IN ASST. YEAR 2005-06 AND IN TH E YEAR UNDER APPEAL TOTAL TURNOVER ACHIEVED IS RS.4,18,62,066/- AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IF THE AVERAGE GP RATE IS TAKEN FOR LAST THREE YEARS THEN THE AVERAGE GP WILL ARRIVE AT 9.06%(3.56% + 13.26% + 10 .37% 3) WHICH IS THE AVERAGE OF GP OF ASST. YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006- 07. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PROPER DETAILS OF JOB WORK, CLOTH RECEIVED AND DELIVERED BACK WHICH WERE RECEIVED ON JOB WORK BASIS WAS MAINTAINED AND THEREFORE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE GP. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES> 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WITH THESE GROUNDS ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE REJECTION OF BO OK RESULTS U/S 145(2) OF THE ACT BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO SUSTAI NING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4.5 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF GP ADDITION . HERE IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN GROUND NO.2 ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS WHE REAS WHILE GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WE FIND THAT HE HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.4, 50,000/- AND THEREFORE, WHILE ADJ UDICATING GROUND NO.2 OF ASSESSEE THE CORRECT FIGURE OF ADDITION SUS TAINED BY LD. CIT(A) TO BE READ AT RS.4,50,000/-. ITA NO 2537/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 7 11. FROM GOING THROUGH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WE OBSE RVE THAT STATUTORY AUDITOR HAS GIVEN QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES, SALES, CLOSING STOCK AND SHORTAGE/EXCESS OF THE GOODS TRADED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AND THE SAME ARE MENTIONED AT COLUMN NO.28A OF FORM NO.3CD ANNEXED TO TAX AUDI T REPORT U/S 44AB OF THE ACT. THESE DETAILS HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHICH TO A GREAT EXTENT NULLI FY THEIR OBSERVATIONS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PROPER QUANTITATIV E RECORDS WHICH WAS FURTHER USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(2) OF THE ACT AND ESTIMATION OF GP. APART FROM THIS, ALL OTHER MINOR OBSERVATIONS RELATING TO MISMATCHIN G OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WITH THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND NON-CHA RGING OF DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE TERMED AS A SEVERE DEFICIENC Y IN ORDER TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. WE FURTHER OBSERVE TH AT TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INCREASED FROM APPROX. 0.99 CRORES IN ASST. YEAR 2004- 05 TO APPROX. 4.18 CRORES IN ASST. YEAR 2006-07 AND ALSO IF GP RATE IS TAKEN UP THEN WE OBSERVE THAT AVERAGE GP FOR ASST. YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 IS CALCULATED AT 9.06% WHICH IS E VEN LESS THAN THE GP SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT 10.37%. IN THESE CIRCUM STANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATE THE GP AND IN LAC K OF ANY MAJOR DISCREPANCY OBSERVED BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWING GP AT 10. 37% SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDE RS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. ACCOR DINGLY, BOTH THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ITA NO 2537/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 8 12. GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER 3. THE APPELLANTS SUBMIT THAT THE ID CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,64,675/-ON ACCOUNT OF DALALI & COMMISSION MADE BY AO AS PER THE FINDING RECORDED IN PARA 5.3 OF THE APPEAL ORDER WH ICH IS AGAINST THE FACTS ON RECORD AND IS NOT VALID IN LAW AND HENCE THE DISALL OWANCE OF RS. 3,64,675/- BE DELETED. 13. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE COMMISSION EXPENDITURE H AS BEEN DEBITED AT RS.7,75,026/- WHEREAS IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDI NG PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. ASST. YEAR 2005-06 THE COMMISSION PAID WAS RS. 4,10,351/- AND DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR PROVING GENUINENESS OF THE COMMISSION EXPENDITURE BOOKED DURING THE YEAR BUT THE REPLY SU BMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENOUGH TO CONVINCE THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER WHO WENT AHEAD TO MAKE ADDITION AT RS.3,64,675/- BY OBS ERVING AS UNDER :- 6.3 ON VERIFICATION OF THE COMPARATIVE CHART IT IS TRUE THAT THE TURNOVER INCREASED DURING THE YEAR BUT THERE ARE INCREMENTS IN DALALI & COMMISSION EXPENSES COMPARISON TO THE SALES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION THE ASSESSEE PAID DALALI AND COMMISSION TO 12 PERSONS AS AGAINST 7 PE RSONS IN THE LAST YEAR A. Y. 2005-06. ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS SUBMITTED I T IS SEEN THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE DOING SALES AND OTHER ACTIVITIES AGAIN ST WHICH THE ASSESSEE PAID COMMISSION TO 12 PERSONS OUT OF WHICH ONLY 3 PERSON S ARE OLD COMMISSION AGENT AND CARRYING OUT THE ASSESSEES COMMISSION WORK IN THE PAST YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED ANY DETAILS REGARDING ON WHA T BASIS THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS MADE AND NO .DETAILS OF PARTIES TO WHOM SA LES/PURCHASE/OTHER SERVICES RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION AGENTS. FURTHE R, ON VERIFICATION OF COMMISSION VOUCHERS IT IS SEEN THAT ONLY ' BEING AM OUNT PAID FOR COMMISSION / DALALI FOR THE YEAR ON ACCOUNT ,...,.......', PRODU CED FOR VERIFICATION AND IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED THAT THE COMMISSIONS ACTUALLY PAID FOR WH AT PURPOSE AND ON THE WHAT BASIS? COPY OF VOUCHER OF COMMISSION AGENT IS ENCLOSED HER EWITH (ANN.G) AND MADE PART OF THIS ORDER THE REPLY/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE VERY VAG UE AND GENERAL IN NATURE. HE HAS NOT PRODUCED CORROBOR ATIVE EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES WITH WHOM THE COMMISSION AGENT HAS BEEN INDULGED IN THE COMME RCIAL TRANSACTION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS_ ADOPTED COLOURFUL DEVICE TO GIVE FACE OF GENUINETY TO THE T RANSACTION. LOOKING AT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE THE EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND ALSO FOR ITA NO 2537/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 9 NATURAL JUSTICE, THE PAYMENTS OF COMMISSION AND DAL ALI AMOUNTING TO RS.3,64.675/- AS PER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED T O THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,64,675/- WAS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 5.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESS MENT ORDER AND APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED COMMISSION AND DALALI EXPENSE OF THE GROUND THAT THE SAME HAS INCREASED FROM RS 4,10,351 TO RS 7,75,026. ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE DETAILS AND JUSTIF ICATION FOR INCREASE IN THESE EXPENSES. APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS INCREA SE IN TURNOVER AND GROSS PROFIT AS COMPARED WITH LAST YEAR AND SUBMITTED NAM E AND PAN OF THE PARTIES. IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT, RING THE YEAR THIS WAS PAID TO 12 PERSONS AGAINST 7 PERSONS LAST YEAR. OUT OF THESE 12 PERSONS, ONLY THREE PERS ONS ARE OLD COMMISSION AGENTS. SINCE APPELLANT DID NOT SUBMIT DETAILS REGA RDING ON WHAT BASIS COMMISSION PAYMENTS WERE MADE AND DETAILS OF SERVIC ES RENDERED, ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE AS MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM. SINCE APPELLANT DID NOT DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSE IS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. 15. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 16. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS WITH NAM ES, PAN, PARTICULARS RELATING REASONS OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSI ON WERE FURNISHED BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE REASON FOR INC REASE OF COMMISSION PAID FROM RS.4.10,351/- IN ASST. YEAR 20 05-06 TO RS.7,75,026/- IN ASST. YEAR 2006-07 WAS DUE TO INC REASE IN TURNOVER WHICH WAS AT RS.21656164/- IN ASST. YEAR 2005-06 AN D IT ALMOST DOUBLE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL I.E. ASST. YEAR 200 6-07 AT RS.41862066/- AND ALSO IF THE COMMISSION EXPENDITUR E IS CALCULATED IN PERCENTAGE FORM WITH REGARD TO THE TURNOVER THEN THE COMMISSION PAID WOULD 1.85% AS COMPARED TO 1.9% DURING ASST. Y EAR 2005-06 AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR. ITA NO 2537/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 10 17. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THROUGH THIS GROUND ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVE D WITH THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.3,64,675 /- TOWARDS COMMISSION EXPENDITURE. WE OBSERVE THAT TURNOVER OF ASSESSEE WHICH WAS APPROX.RS. 2.16 LACS IN ASST..YEAR 2005-0 6 INCREASED TO RS.4.18 LACS IN ASST. YEAR 2006-07 AND SIMILARLY, C OMMISSION EXPENDITURE INCREASED FROM RS.4.10 LACS IN ASST. YE AR 2005-06 TO RS.7.75 LACS IN ASST. YEAR 2006-07. WE FURTHER OBSE RVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COMPLETE DETAILS WITH NAMES, PAN, AND PARTICULARS OF COMMISSION PAID BUT THE BASIS OF CAL CULATION OF COMMISSION, ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES ALONG WITH CON FIRMATION WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. A R EQUEST WAS MADE BY LD. AR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT IF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN THEN ASSESSEE WILL BE ABLE TO SATISFY LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE COMMISSION EXPENDITURE BOOKE D IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS AND LD. DR HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE RE QUEST MADE BY LD. AR. WE THEREFORE, ACCEPT THE REQUEST OF LD. AR AND SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERI FICATION OF THE COMMISSION EXPENDITURE AND NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WOULD BE GIVEN TO THE AS SESSEE BEFORE MAKING FRESH ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO 2537/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 11 19. GROUND NO.4 READS AS UNDER 4. THE APPELLANTS SUBMIT THAT THE ID CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 7,92,647/-U/S 40(A)(IA) MADE BY THE AO BEING FREIGHT & OCTROI AND MAJURI EXPENSES PAID THROUGH MARFATIAS (1) AND (2) RAMESH K SHARMA AND RAMSHA ROAD CARRIER & RAMSHA ROAD LINES TO TRUCK OWNERS AS PER THE FINDING RECORDED IN PARA 7.3 OF THE APPEAL ORDER, WHICH IS ILLEGAL AS THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 194-C ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HENCE BE CA NCELLED. 20. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DURING HIS VERIFICATION O F THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED FREIGHT AND OCTROI EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.9,30,851/- AND ACCORDINGLY NECESSARY DETAILS WERE REQUESTED TO BE PRODUCED. GO ING THROUGH THE SAME IT WAS FOUND THAT A SUM OF RS.3,47,080/- WAS P AID TO SHRI RAMESH K. SHARMA, RS.2,53,210/- TO M/S RAMASHA ROAD CARRIER AND RS.1,92,357/- TO M/S RAMSHA ROAD LINES ON WHICH NO TDS U/S 194C OF THE ACT WAS DEDUCTED WHEREAS ASSESSEE FILED NECE SSARY DETAILS TO SHOW THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO VARIOUS TRANSPORTERS WERE BELOW RS.50,000/- OR WERE PAID TO AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL COR PORATION AND THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS MADE TO SHRI RAMESH K. SHARMA , M/S RAMASHA ROAD CARRIER AND RAMSHA ROAD LINES WERE ACT UALLY MEANT FOR BEING PAID TO VARIOUS PARTIES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENOUGH TO CONVINCE TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND ADDITION OF RS. 7,92,647/- WAS MADE AFT ER APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BY LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- ON VERIFICATION OF THE FREIGHT AND OCTROI EXPENSES ACCOUNT WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-'H' AND THE SAME ALSO MADE PARF OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER OF THIS ORDER ENCLOSE HEREWITH AS THE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AND ANALYSES OF THE ABOVE CHART THERE IS NO FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE VARIOUS TRANSPORTERS AND TO THE MUNICIPALITY . AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 7.3 OF THIS ORDER THE PAYME NTS MADE TO THE ABOVE ITA NO 2537/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 12 REFERRED 3 TRANSPORTERS APPLICABLE HOWEVER, THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED TAX ON PAYMENT OF FREIGHT AND OCTROI EXPENSES TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 7.92,647/- AS PER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER PR OVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE I T ACT, 1961. 8.4 SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO MAKE IDS BUT H AS NOT MADE ANY TDS, ON THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE DEBITED AND CLAIMED AMOUNTING TO RS. 7.92.647/- IS BEING DISALLOWED FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF FHE I. T. ACT, AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 21. ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 7,92,647/- BEFORE LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT BRING ANY R ELIEF AS THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) BY OBSE RVING AS UNDER :- 7.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESS MENT ORDER AND APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWE D TRANSPORTATION AND OCTROI EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THESE PAYMENTS W ERE MADE TO 3 ARTIES IN EXCESS OF RS 50,000 WITHOUT DEDUCTING TDS UNDER SECTION 194C IT ACT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT , PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THREE PARTIES NAMELY-RAMASA ROAD LINES, RAMESH ROAD LINES AND RAMESHWAR SHARMA. APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT THESE PART IES WERE NOT ACTUALLY TRANSPORTERS. THEY WERE ACTING AS APPELLAN T'S AGENT IN MAKING PAYMENT TO VARIOUS TRANSPORTERS WHO WERE PAID LESS THAN RS 50,000 IN A YEAR AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C IS NO T APPLICABLE AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40 (A)(IA) I S NOT APPLICABLE. IT IS FURTHER ARGUED BY THE APPELLANT THAT ON PAYMENT OF OCTROI, NO IDS IS DEDUCTIBLE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT APPELLANT IS MAKING PAYMENT TO THESE THREE AGENTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION WORK. IN THE BO OKS OF THE APPELLANT, PAYMENT TO THESE PERSONS ONLY APPEARED AS MENTIONED IN THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT ATTACHED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THESE PERSONS IN TURN MADE PAYMENT TO TRANSPORTERS, LABOUR AND OCTROI. AS PER CBDT'S CIRCULAR NUMBER 715, GROSS PAYMENT TO THE CLEARING AGENT IS SUBJECT TO TDS PROVISIONS. SINCE APPELLANT IS MAKING PAYMENT TO TH ESE THREE PERSONS FOR VARIOUS WORKS, APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS UN DER SECTION 194C. BY NOT DOING SO APPELLANT HAS DEFAULTED WITHIN THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 40 (A)(IA) AND ACCORDINGLY THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ARE NO T ALLOWABLE. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCORDING LY CONFIRMED. 22. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO 2537/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 13 23. LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE N O LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TDS U/S 194C ON THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PAYMENTS O F RS.3,47,080/- MADE TO SHRI RAMESH K. SHARMA, RS.2,5 3,210/- TO M/S RAMASHA ROAD CARRIER AND RS.1,92,357/- TO M/S RAMSH A ROAD LINES. BECAUSE ALL THESE THREE PARTIES WERE JUST ME DIATORS FOR MAKING FINAL PAYMENT TO THE ACTUAL TRANSPORTERS AND REFERR ED TO EXHIBIT KFILED BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER APPEARING IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE REIMBURSED T O VARIOUS TRANSPORTERS ON SEVERAL DATES AND, THEREFORE, TDS W AS NOT LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CH EQUES. 24. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DID NOT BRING ANYTHING NEW DURING T HE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US. 25. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THROUGH THIS GROUND ASSESSEE HAS CHALLEN GED THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,92,647/- MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 194C OF THE AC T FOR FREIGHT AND OCTROI CHARGES OF RS. 7,92,647/-. THE BASIC REASON WHICH INITIATED THIS ADDITION WAS THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ASSE SSEE PAID RS.3,47,080/- MADE TO SHRI RAMESH K. SHARMA, RS.2,5 3,210/- TO M/S RAMASHA ROAD CARRIER AND RS.1,92,357/- TO M/S RAMSH A ROAD LINES TOWARDS OCTROI CHARGES AND NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED U/S 194C OF THE ACT WHEREAS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE ITA NO 2537/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 14 SUBMITTED THAT THESE WERE THE PARTIES I.E. SHRI RAM ESH K. SHARMA, M/S RAMASHA ROAD CARRIER AND M/S RAMSHA ROAD LINES, WHO WERE MARFATIA I.E. MEDIATORS WHO USED TO BOOK THE TRANSP ORT COMPANY FOR TRANSPORTING OF GOODS AND BY WAY OF EXHIBIT K AP PEARING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS SUBMITTED COMPLETE DETAILS WIT H THE NAME OF TRANSPORTS AND THE AMOUNT PAID DURING THE YEAR AND INDIVIDUAL PAYMENT TO ALL THESE TRANSPORTERS EXCEPT FOR AHMEDA BAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND MISCELLANEOUS LABOUR/CARTAGE EXPENS ES THE TOTAL PAYMENT FOR EACH TRANSPORT IS LESS THAN RS.50,000/- . THIS WAS THE BASIC REASON ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE FOR NON-DEDUCT ION OF TDS. 26. FROM GOING THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 19 4C OF THE ACT APPLICATION FOR ASST. YEAR 2006-07, IF ANY WORK IS COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT CHARGEABLE FO R TDS THEN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE IF THE INDIVIDUAL SUM PAID/CREDITED IS LESS THAN RS.20,000/- OR AGGRE GATE OF THE TOTAL SUM PAID/CREDITED IS LESS THAN RS.50,000/-. HOWEVER , WE OBSERVE THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN COGNIZANCE TO T HE DETAILS SHOWN AT EXHIBIT K SHOWING THE FURTHER BIFURCATION OF TH E AMOUNT PAID TO THE IMPUGNED THREE PARTIES I.E. SHRI RAMESH K. SHARMA, M/S RAMASHA ROAD CARRIER AND M/S RAMSHA ROAD LINES. WE AGREE WI TH THE CONTENTIONS OF LD. AR THAT PAYMENTS MADE TO THESE I MPUGNED THREE PARTIES WERE PAYMENTS TO MEDIATORS I.E. MARFATIAS A ND THE ACTUAL SUM PAID/CREDITED WERE TO INDIVIDUAL TRANSPORTERS AND I T WAS INCUMBENT ON THE PART OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE AP PLICABILITY OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS TRA NSPORTERS AND NOT THE IMPUGNED THREE PARTIES. ITA NO 2537/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 15 WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SUM PAID/CRED ITED TO THE TRANSPORTERS IS EITHER NOT EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- IN A SINGLE ENTRY OR THE AGGREGATE OF SUM PAID/CREDITED TO EACH TRANSPOR TER IS NOT EXCEEDING RS.50,000/- THEN CERTAINLY NO ADDITION SH OULD BE CALLED FOR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE AC T. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R AND LD. ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ENSURE THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE NECESSARY DETAILS. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 27. GROUND NO.5 IS AS UNDER 5. ALTERNATIVELY, THE APPELLANTS SUBMIT THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO THOUGH T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJECTED U/S 145(2) BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE ID CIT(A) AS PER THE FINDING RECORDED IN PARA 8 OF THE APPEAL ORDER WHICH IS ILL EGAL AND HENCE BE DELETED. (1) RS. 3,64,675/- DALALI & COMMISSION. , (2) RS.7,92,647/- FREIGH & OCTROI U/S 40(A)(AI). / 28. THIS GROUND HAS BECOME INFRACTUOUS SINCE WE HAV E ALREADY ALLOWED GROUND NOS.1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL. 29. GROUND NO.6 IS CONSEQUENTIAL. ITA NO 2537/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 16 30.. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/05/ 2016 SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 24/5/2016 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 ASS T. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 24/ 05/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 24/ 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: 24/5/2016 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: