M/s. Sahajanand Associates, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-9, Ahmedabad

ITA 2838/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: 283820514 RSA 2008
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G S SOURYAWANSHISR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Depreciation; Loose papers
• Section: 234B; 80IB; 10

Judgement Text

ITA N O.2838 & 3039/AHD/2008 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHM EDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA,VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A. L. GEHLOT) I.T.A. NO. 2 838/AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-2006) M/S. SAHJANAND ASSOCIATES, 101, SAHJANAND COMPLEX, OPP. JANTA NAGAR, 100 FT. RING ROAD, NEW C.G. ROAD, CHANDKHEDA, AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9, KENDRIYA PRATYAKSHA BHAVAN, OPP. OLD SACHIVALAYA, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD. (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO. 3039/ AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-2006) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9, KENDRIYA PRATYAKSHA BHAVAN, OPP. OLD SACHIVALAYA, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) VS. M/S. SAHJANAND ASSOCIATES, 101, SAHJANAND COMPLEX, OPP. JANTA NAGAR, 100 FT. RING ROAD, NEW C.G. ROAD, CHANDKHEDA, AHMEDABAD. (RESPONDENT) PAN: ABBFS 1575 J ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE.: MR. S.N.SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. :MR. G.S. SOURYAWANSHI,SR . D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 12-1-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-2-2012 PER: SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, A.M. ITA N O.2838 & 3039/AHD/2008 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 2 THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS. THE GROUND RAISED IN ASSSESSEES APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,22,300/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME AGAINST THE SALE OF BUNGALOW/RESIDENTIAL UNIT. THE ALTERNAT IVE GROUND THAT THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80IB WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.2,22,300/-. ITA NO.2838/AHD/2008 BY ASSESSEE: 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE NOTE FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (A)ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DEVELOPED 28 RESIDENTIAL UNITS NAMED AS S AHJANAND CITY AT VILLAGE CHANDKHEDA,TALUKA GANDHINAGAR, DISTRICT GANDHINAGAR ,AHMEDABAD. A SURVEY OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON 9-9-2005. DURING THE C OURSE OF SURVEY IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED MONEY AGAINST BUNGALOWS. /RESIDENTIAL UNIT BUT THE SAME WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. DURING T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM SHR I KANTIBHAI L. PATEL, WHO HOLDS 60% SHARE DECLARED DURING THE SURVEY FOLLOWING INCO ME IN HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN. SAHJANAND DEVELOPERS RS. 9,33,000/- SAHJANANDIN FRASTRUCTURE RS.15,33,857/- ------------------ RS.24,66,857/- IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT SHRI KANTILAL L. PATEL, I NDIVIDUAL RETURN THE PARTNER FILED SEPARATE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THESE TWO PROPRIETARY CONCERNS. HOWEVER, WHEN SHRI KANTILAL L. PATEL FILE D THE RETURN, HE DECLARED RS.9,33,000/- FOR SAHJANAND DEVELOPERS. BUT IN RE SPECT OF SAHJANAND INFRASTRUCTURE RS.15,33,857/- INCLUDED IN WORK-IN-P ROGRESS OF RS.2,76,76,000/- AS THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED COMPLETION METHOD. SIMILARLY , IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FIRM THE AO POINTED OUT THAT THE INCOME OFFERED DURING S URVEY TOTALING TO RS.2,22,300/- SHOULD BE TAXED U/S. 69 OF THE ACT BECAUSE IT WAS N OT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN THOUGH ITA N O.2838 & 3039/AHD/2008 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 3 IT WAS DECLARED DURING SURVEY. THE SUBMISSION OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS THAT RS.2,22,300/- OFFERED DURING THE SURVEY HAS BEEN SH OWN AS A PART OF MEMBERS COLLECTION OF RS.34,88,001/- SHOWN AS OTHER LIABILI TIES IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE TRADING AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE FIR M NOTED BY CIT (A) AT PAGE-5 IS AS UNDER:- TRADING AND P & L ACCOUNT OF SAHJANAND ASSOCIATES EXPENDITURE. IN COME COST OF CONSTRUCTION 81,64,344 SALES 0 ADMINISTRATIVE EXP. 52,463 OTHER I NCOME 0 FINANCIAL EXPENSES 521 WORK- IN-PROGRESS 1,23,81,000 DEPRECIATION 0 PROFIT 41,63,672 TOTAL 1,23,81,000 T OTAL 1,23,81,000 IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOW ING PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND VALUING CLOSING WORK IN PR OGRESS AS PER ACCOUNTING STANDARD. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED RS.41,63,672/- AS B USINESS INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE CIT (A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES S UBMISSION OBSERVING THAT AT THE TIME OF MAKING DISCLOSURE, THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THAT WAS FOLLOWING AND SAY THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.2 ,22,300/- HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE WORKING OUT THE PROFIT OF THE FIRM IS NOT CORRECT. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PAR TY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, IN THE CASE OF KA NTIBHAI L. PATEL IN ITA NO.2837 & 3038/AHD/2008 ORDER DATED 30-09-2011, THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THAT AND FINDING OF THE ITAT ARE REPRODUCED AS BELOW:- ITA N O.2838 & 3039/AHD/2008 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 4 4. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTING HOUSING PRO JECT. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE DEVELOPED 26 RESIDENTIAL UNITS NAMED A S SAHAJANAND VILLA ON THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.650/P, TOWN PLANNING SCH EME NO.22, FINAL PLOT NO.199/1 ADMEASURING ABOUT 4461 SQUARE METRES AT VI LLAGE CHANDKHEDA, TALUKA GANDHINAGAR, DISTRICT GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD . THE ASSESSEE DERIVED BUSINESS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF WORKING AS PA RTNER HAVING 10% SHARE IN SAHAJANAND ASSOCIATES, SAHAJANAND DEVELOPE RS, PROPRIETARY CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SAHAJANAND INFRASTRUCT URE, PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE, RECEIVING INCOME FROM DEVE LOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. A SURVEY OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE O FFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 09-09-2005. CERTAIN PAPERS WERE FOUND D URING THE SURVEY WHICH SHOWED THAT MONEY HAD BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST BUNGALO WS/RESIDENTIAL UNITS BY THE ASSESSEE BUT IT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ON THIS THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS IN TWO PROPRIETARY CONCERNS: 1) SAHAJANAND DEVELOPERS RS. 9,33,000/- 2) SAHAJANAND INFRASTRUCTURE RS.15,33,847/- TOTAL RS.24,71,847/- THE AO DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 3 OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED SEPARATE BALAN CE SHEETS AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNTS IN HIS TWO PROPRIETARY CONCERNS, SEPA RATE INCOME FOR EACH ONE HAD BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION DURING THE SURVEY. HO WEVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME, HE DECLARED RS.9,33,000/- D ISCLOSED DURING THE SURVEY FOR SAHAJANAND DEVELOPERS BY MENTIONING THE SAME AM OUNT IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN BUT IN THE CASE OF SAHAJANAND INFRASTRUCTURE, INCOME DISCLOSED DURING THE SURVEY WAS NOT OFFERED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNTS. THE TRADING AND PROFIT & LO SS ACCOUNTS FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME OF OTHER PROPRIETARY CONCERN SAHAJ ANAND INFRASTRUCTURE SHOWS WORK IN PROGRESS AT RS.2,76,76,000/- WITHOUT ANY SALE AND OTHER INCOME. THUS, THE PROFIT OF SAHAJANAND DEVELOPERS O F RS.12,67,827/- AND PROFIT OF RS.1,04,60,660/- OF SAHAJANAND INFRASTRUC TURE TOTALING TO RS.1,13,82,676/- WAS SHOWN AS BUSINESS INCOME IN TH E COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED WITH THE RETURN. THE AOS POINT WAS TH AT THE INCOME OFFERED DURING THE SURVEY TOTALING TO RS.24,71,747/- SHOULD BE TAXED U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT BECAUSE IT HAD NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN THOUGH IT WAS DISCLOSED DURING THE SURVEY. IN THE STATEMENT OF FACT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT INCOME OF RS.9,33,000/- OFFERED DURING THE SUR VEY IN THE CASE OF SAHAJANAND DEVELOPERS HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNTS OF THE ITA N O.2838 & 3039/AHD/2008 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 5 CONCERN AND IT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED. FOR INCOME OFFE RED DURING THE SURVEY IN THE CASE OF SAHJANAND DEVELOPERS, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT INCOME OF RS.15,38,747/- (RS.21,01,000/- MINUS RS.5,62,253/-) WAS OFFERED BECAUSE CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS AND RECORDS WERE FOUND DURING THE SURVEY WHICH REFLECTED THAT MEMBERS COLLECTION FOR RS.21,01,000/ - AND CONSTRUCTION COST OF RS.5,62,253/- HAD NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED. IT WAS EXPLAI NED THAT IN THE RETURN FILED AFTER SURVEY, MEMBERS COLLECTION OF RS.21,01, 000/- WAS SHOWN AS PART OF MEMBERS COLLECTION OF RS.52,70,000/- WAS SHOWN A S OTHER LIABILITIES IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND RS.5,62,253/- AS PART OF LABOUR C OST IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, IT WAS THUS ARGUED THAT THE INCOME OFFERED DURING THE SURVEY HAD BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOM E. IT WAS ALSO STATED IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FOLLO WING PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND FOLLOWED CLOSIN G WORK IN PROGRESS AS PER ACCOUNTING STANDARD 7, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF RECEIPT OF MEMBERS COLLECTION AND PERCENTAGE BASIS OF COMPLETION OF WO RK, THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED RS.1,04,60,659/- AS BUSINESS INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CASH FRO M THE MEMBERS FOR VARIOUS BUNGALOWS THAT HE HAD CONSTRUCTED AND ALLEGED UNACC OUNTED INCOME IS HIS BUSINESS INCOME, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE TREATED AS IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON GOING T HROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD FOUND THAT RS.9,33,000/- HAS BEEN DECLARED SEPARATELY AS INCOME DISCLOSED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF ONE OF THE PROPRIETARY CON CERN SAHAJANAND DEVELOPERS, HOWEVER, RS.15,38,747/- HAS NOT BEEN SE PARATELY DECLARED IN THE CASE OF SAHAJANAND INFRASTRUCTURE. THE LEARNED CIT( A) ALSO FOUND THAT INCOME WHICH WAS NOT ACCOUNTED AS MEMBERS COLLECTIO N OF RS.21,01,000/- DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WHICH WAS STATED TO BE PART OF RS.52,70,000/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT AT THE TIME OF M AKING DISCLOSURE FOR SAHAJANAND INFRASTRUCTURE THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THAT HE WAS FOLLOWING AND TO SHOW THAT T HIS AMOUNT OF RS.15,38,747/- HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE WO RKING OUT THE PROFIT OF SAHAJANAND INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT CONVINCING. THE LE ARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, HELD THAT ADDITION OF RS.15,38,747/- SHALL HAVE TO BE MADE AND ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. HOWEVER, SINCE RS.9,33,000/- WA S DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, SEPARATE ADDITION WAS DELETED . 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE PART ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) I S ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED CIT (A) FOUND THAT RS.9,33,000/- HAS BEEN D ECLARED SEPARATELY AS INCOME DISCLOSED DURING SURVEY OPERATION. THE LEARN ED DR HAS NOT PRODUCED ITA N O.2838 & 3039/AHD/2008 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 6 ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS O F THE LEARNED CIT(A). SINCE THIS AMOUNT IS ALREADY DISCLOSED IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME AND THE STATEMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE W AS FOUND CORRECT BY THE LEARNED CIT (A), THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY I N THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. PB-1 IS THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNTS OF SAHAJANAND DEVELOPERS WHICH SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNT O F RS.9,33,000/- IS TAKEN INTO INCOME OF THIS CONCERN. THEREFORE, THE L EARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS N O MERIT AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF R S.15,33,847/- IS CONCERNED ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUND N O.1 OF THE APPEAL, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS CORRECT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.21,01,000/- HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AN D IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PB- 15 WHICH IS TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OF SAHAJANAND INFRASTRUCTURE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS IN A SUM OF RS.2,76,76,000 /- AND PB-21 PARA 4 GIVES THE DETAILS OF INVENTORIES OF THIS CONCERN IN WHICH THE COMPLETE WORK WAS VALUED AT RS.2,55,75,000/- AS PER ACCOUNTING ST ANDARD 7. THUS, THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE RS.21,01,000/-. THUS AS PER ACC OUNTING STANDARD 7, THE ASSESSEE VALUED WORK IN PROGRESS AT THE LESSER A MOUNT BUT IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE WORK IN PROGRESS IS SHOWN AT HIGH ER AMOUNT WOULD SHOW THAT RS.21,01,000/- HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF AND THE SAME BECAME PART OF WORK IN PROGRESS. THUS, THE AMOUNT INCLUDES AN AMOU NT OF RS.15,38,747/- AS ARGUED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THUS, THERE WAS N O REASON FOR THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO HOLD THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SAHAJANAND INFRASTRUCTURE WAS NOT CONVINCING. SINCE THE AMOUNT DECLARED IN THE SURVEY IN RESPECT OF SAHAJANAND INFRASTRUCTURE IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE WORK IN PROGRESS, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO NEED TO MAKE SEPA RATE ADDITION. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.15,33,847/-. IN THE RESULT, GROUND N O.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF THIS FINDING, GROUN D NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING ALTERNATIVE RELIEF U/S 80 IB (10) OF THE IT ACT HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION WE NOTICED FROM STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED ALONG WITH APPEAL BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAVE THREE PARTNERS NAMELY KANTILAL L. PATEL 60%, DINESHBHAI L. PATEL 20% AND RAKESHBHAI L. SAVALIA 20%. ITA N O.2838 & 3039/AHD/2008 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 7 5. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PAPERS FOUN D DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY REFLECTED UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS RS. 6,51,000/ - AND EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,28,700/-. THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT WAS ACCOUNTE D AND INCLUDED IN GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.34,77,001/- (DETAILED AT PAGE 121 OF THE PAPER BOOK) OF WHICH IS REFLECTED IN BALANCE SHEET AS OTHER LIABILITIES. T HE EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,28,700/- WAS SEPARATELY ACCOUNTED AND DEBITED. 6. THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED COMPLETION METHOD, THEREFO RE, RECEIPTS OF RS.34,77,001/- WHICH INCLUDE RECEIPTS OF RS.6,51,00 0/- SHOWN IN BALANCE SHEET IS SUBJECT TO CONSIDERATION ON COMPLETION OF PROJECT S UBJECT THIS VERIFICATION. FOLLOWING ORDER OF ITAT IN CASE OF ANOTHER PARTNER IN CASE OF KANTILAL L. PATEL, THE ADDITION OF RS.2,22,300/- IS DELETED. THE SECOND G ROUND OF APPEAL IS ALTERNATIVE, ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB ON SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.2,22,300/-.SINCE THE ADDITION ITSELF IS DELETED THEREFORE, THIS ALTERNAT E GROUND BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. GROUND RAISED IN RESPECT OF CHARGING OF INTEREST IS CONSEQUENTIAL THE AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 7. THIRD GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS IN RESPECT OF CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S. 234B AND 234C WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL, THE AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.3039/AHD/2008 BY REVENUE . 8. REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED BY REV ENUE. THEREFORE, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THESE REVISE D GROUNDS FILED. ITA N O.2838 & 3039/AHD/2008 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 8 THE FIRST GROUND IS THAT ADDITION OF RS.14,05,701/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) CONFIRMED BY CIT (A) BUT DIRECTED AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE OBJECTED TO THE DIRECTIONS OF CIT (A) FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB. 9. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. AR SUBMITTED ISSUE IS COV ERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF ITAT,AHMEDABAD IN CASE OF M/S. RAMESH INDUSTRIES, ITA NO.3131/AHD/2008 DAT3ED 21-1-2011.THE RELEVANT FIND ING REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IS DIRECTLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S. CHIRAG PLAST IN ITA NO.2415/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD OCTOBER, 2009 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 5. REGARDING GROUND NO.2, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT EVEN IF ADDITION IS SUSTAINED, THEN ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTIT LED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB AS IT WOULD BE ONLY THE BUSINESS PROFI T. SECTION 40(A CHAPTER (IV) AND UNDER THE HEAD COMPUTATION OF BUSINESS INCOME. ANY ADDITION PROPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING A PRO VISION FALLING IN CHAPTER (IV) UNDER THE HEAD COMPUTATION OF BUSINESS INCOME , PARTICULARLY BETWEEN SECTION 28 TO 43D, WOULD BE MADE UNDER THE HEAD IN COME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SO PROVIDED. ACCORDINGLY, THOUGH PROPO SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT TDS HAS NOT BEEN PAID TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WITHIN TIME IS IN ORDER, BUT ASS ESSEE IS ENTITLE TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB THEREON AS IT WOULD BE ONLY A PART OF BUSINESS PROFIT. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR THAT ASSESSEE MA Y CLAIM BENEFIT AGAIN ON PAYMENT BASIS IS PREMATURE AND ACADEMIC AS THERE AR E ENOUGH LEGAL RECOURSES OPEN TO PREVENT SUCH CLAIMS. AS A RESULT WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THE SAME IS DISMISSED . ITA N O.2838 & 3039/AHD/2008 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 9 SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE T HE SAME, FOLLOWING ABOVE DECISION WE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AND DI SMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 10. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, WE RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE ABOVE ORDER OF ITAT AND IN THE LIGHT OF THAT THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IS CONFIRMED ON THE ISSUE. 11. THE SECOND GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION U/ S. 80IB ON RS.41,63,672/.THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS. THE CIT (A) ALLOWED THE C LAIM OF ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF CIT (A) REPRODUCED AS BELOW:- THE APPELLANT DISCLOSED PROFITS FROM THE HOUSING P ROJECT, IT IS SUCCESSFULLY EXPLAINED THAT IT HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB (PLEASE REFER TO PARA 4.2 OF TH E SUBMISSION QUOTED ABOVE). ITS ARGUMENT IN PARA 4.4 OF THE SUBMISSION QUOTED ABOVE, CONTAINS FORCE THAT IF 80-IB IS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THA T BU PERMISSION IS NOT RECEIVED, THEN INCOME OFFERED OF RS.41,63,672/- SHO ULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS HIS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT ALL AND IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON COMPLETION OF PROJECT AND WHEN BU PERMISSION IS RECEIVED. THE AO IS THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO ALLOW 80IB DEDUCTION AND DELETE ADDITIO N OF RS.41,63,672/-. 12. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE IS SUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF SHRI KANTIBHAI L. PAT EL, IN ITAT NO.2837/AHD/2008 DATED 30-9-2011. THE RELEVANT FACT S AND FINDING GIVEN BY ITAT IN PARA-9 OF THE ORDER REPRODUCED AS BELOW:- ON GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE CHALLENGE D THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION ITA N O.2838 & 3039/AHD/2008 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 10 U/S 80 IB OF THE IT ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,04,60 ,660/-. THE AO DISCUSSED THIS POINT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH SHOWS THAT DEDUCTION HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE BECA USE BUILDING USE PERMISSION OF AUDA IS DATED 12-12-2005 AND 21 -12-2005, ACCORDING TO THE AO THESE DATES ARE BEYOND FINANCIA L YEAR 2004-05, HENCE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE IT ACT WAS DEN IED. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR BUILDING USE PERMISSION TO AUDA IN OCTOBER, 2005 AND THE AUDA HAD GRANTED S UCH PERMISSION IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2005, HENCE CO NSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOW CANNOT BE SAID TO BE READY DURING THE FINA NCIAL YEAR 2004- 05 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. DE DUCTION WAS ACCORDINGLY DENIED U/S 80IB (10) OF THE IT ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE PURCHASED T HE LAND IN QUESTION AT CHANDKHEDA, AHMEDABAD ON WHICH THE ASS ESSEE HAD DEVELOPED 26 RESIDENTIAL UNITS NAMES AS SAHAJANAND VILLA AND SUCH PROJECT WAS COMMENCED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6. THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WHEREIN INCOME IS OFFERED TO TAX ON THE BASIS OF PE RCENTAGE OF WORK COMPLETED AND ON ESTIMATION OF PROFIT TO BE REALIZE D BY HIM ON SALE OF THE UNITS. THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS BEEN OFFERING THE PROFIT FOR TAXATION EVEN BEFORE SALE BECAUSE IT HAS RECEIVED ORDER FOR SALE AND SUCH METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WAS ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNTIN G STANDARD ISSUED BY INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF IND IA (ICAI) RELATED TO INCOME FROM CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE EXPL AINED THAT CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80 IB (10) OF THE IT ACT ARE SATISFIED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE APPROVAL OF AUDA WAS GRANTED ON 27-10-2004. IT WAS COMPLETED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. SIZE OF TH E PLOT OF LAND WAS AS PER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS AND MAXIMUM BUILT-UP AR EA WAS ALSO ACCORDING TO LAW, THEREFORE, BUILDING USE PERMISSIO N RECEIVED IN DECEMBER, 2005 IS AS PER LAW. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SATISFIED ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80 IB (10) OF THE IT ACT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FULFILL ED THE CONDITIONS, THEN INCOME OFFERED EARLIER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TA XED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HO USING PROJECT WAS COMPLETED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND THE ASS ESSEE APPLIED FOR BUILDING USE PERMISSION IN OCTOBER, 2005 AND SUCH P ERMISSION WAS OBTAINED FROM AUDA IN DECEMBER, 2005 I.E. WITHIN FO UR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF APPROVAL FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, THER EFORE, THE ASSESSEE FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80 IB (10) OF THE IT ACT. THE AO FILED REMAND REPORT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON ITA N O.2838 & 3039/AHD/2008 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 11 EXAMINING THE RECORD AND MATERIAL BEFORE HIM FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DEVELOPED THE PROJECT IN QUESTION AND ACCO RDING TO SECTION 80 IB (10) (A) (II) OF THE IT ACT , THE HOUSING PR OJECT WHOSE APPROVAL HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES ON OR AFTER 01-04-2004 WHICH IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS APPROVAL WAS GRANTED BY AUDA ON 27 TH OCTOBER, 2004, SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEA R IN WHICH THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORIT IES. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HOUSING PROJECT WAS COMPLETED IN DECEM BER, 2005 AS PER BUILDING USE PERMISSION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSE E HAS FURTHER TIME TILL 31-03-2009 FOR COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, FOUND THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80 IB (10) OF THE IT ACT ARE SATISFIED IN THIS CASE AND ACCORDINGLY THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO GRANT DEDUCTION ACCORDINGLY. ON GONG THROUGH THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT. THE ORDE R CONTAINS COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE PROJECT ALONG WITH APPROVAL AND COMP LETION OF THE PROJECT. THE LEARNED DR HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY IN FIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHALLE NGE TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVI DENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED C IT(A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE CONFIRM HIS FINDINGS AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 13. SINCE COMPLETE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFOR E THE AO, THEREFORE WE FOLLOW THE ABOVE ORDER OF ITAT AND DIRECT THE AO T O VERIFY THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDA NCE WITH ABOVE ORDER OF ITAT AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSES SEE. 14. THE THIRD GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF R S.30 LAKHS U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT (A) DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER:- ITA N O.2838 & 3039/AHD/2008 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 12 1 THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THIS POINT IN PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CASH CREDIT WAS MADE PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND TH AT CONFIRMATION LETTER WAS NOT FURNISHED FOR THE NEW DEPOSITOR. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE FURNISHED GI VING COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF DIVYAM REAL ESTATE P. LTD., OF A.Y. 2005- 06.THE RETURN WAS FILED WITH ITO WARD 1(4), AHMEDAB AD ON31-10-05. IT WAS INFORMED THAT VIDE LETTER DATED 20-6-07 COPY OF CON FIRMATION OF THIS PARTY ALONG PAN WAS SUBMITTED TO THE AO. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF DIVYAM REAL ESTATE MAINTAINED WITH CORPORATION BANK , MEMNAGAR, AHMEDABAD AND COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT MAINTAINED IN GANDHINAGAR CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., CHANDKHEDA, AHM EDABAD WERE ALSO FILED TO SHOW THAT THE LOAN WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BA NKING CHANNELS. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT WERE SENT TO THE A O VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 13-5-08, THE AO WAS ALSO ASKED TO CONDUCT FUR THER ENQUIRIES IF REQUIRED. HOWEVER, VIDE HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 13- 6-08, THE AO STATED THAT THE REQUISITE DETAILS WERE NOT FILED BY THE APPELLA NT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF FULL A NSD COMPLETE DETAILS, ADDITION WAS MADE U/S. 68 OF RS.30,00,000/-. AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SUCCESSFULLY PROVED THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. THE LENDER IS A COMPANY FILING INCOME- TAX RETURNS, AND IT EXTENDED LOANS THROUGH ITS BANK ACCOUNT, THE APPELL ANT ALSO RECEIVED LOANS IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT. NO FURTHER ENQUIRIES WERE MADE BY THE AO DESPITE OPPORTUNITIES BEING GIVEN. THE MATERIAL PLACED ON R ECORD DOES NOT WARRANT ADDITION U/S. 68 OF RS.30,00,000/-.THE AO IS DIRECT ED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.30,00,000/-. 15. THE LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT ON IDENTICAL SDET O F FACTS ITAT IN THE CASE OF ITA NO.2837/AHD/2008 DATED 30-9-2011 DELETED THE AD DITION. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF ITAT IS REPRODUCED BELOW: ITA N O.2838 & 3039/AHD/2008 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 13 ON GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE CHALLENG ED THE DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS U/S 6 8 OF THE IT ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS.26,80,000/-. THE AO DISCUSSED THIS I SSUE IN PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND MADE THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE NEW CREDITORS HAD NOT BEEN FI LED. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED SUBMISSI ON GIVING CASH CONFIRMATION LETTERS, COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT, COPY OF RETURNS ETC. IN SUPPORT OF TWO FRESH DEPOSITS FROM GOVINDBHAI PATEL AND DIVYAM REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. FOR THE REMAINING THREE DEPOSITS IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT NO FRESH DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THEM DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THESE AMOUNTS ARE OF RS.1,00,0 00/- RS.2,00,000/ AND RS.1,00,000/- EACH IN CASE OF JAYA NTILAL PRANLAL, KANTILAL PATEL, HUF AND NILESH POONAMCHANDA. THE SU BMISSIONS OF HT4E ASSESSEE WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO AND HE WAS A SKED TO CONDUCT INQUIRY IF REQUIRED. THE REMAND REPORT WAS FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN WHICH THE AO STATED THAT REQUISIT E DETAILS WERE NOT FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON GOING THROUGH THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND THE REMAND REPORT NOTED THAT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES WERE FILED T O EXPLAIN GENUINE CASH CREDITS IN THE CASE OF GOVINDBHAI PATEL AND DI VYAM REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. WHICH WERE SUPPORTED BY THEIR CONFIRMATIO N, PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AND COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT ETC. ADDITI ONS IN THEIR CASES WERE ACCORDINGLY DELETED AND IN THE CASE OF T HE REMAINING THREE CREDITORS IT WAS FOUND THAT LOANS HAVE NOT BE EN TAKEN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THEIR NAMES WERE A PPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YE AR 2004-05. ADDITIONS WERE ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 16. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AND FACTS OF T HE CASE WE FIND THAT CIT (A) HAS SATISFIED WITH MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE CIT (A) PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO BUT AO DID NOT MAKE ANY FURTH ER ENQUIRY. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF C IT (A). WHEN THE AO DID NOT WANT TO MAKE ANY ENQUIRY, THE AO SHOULD HAVE NO GRI EVANCE AGAINST THE ORDER OF ITA N O.2838 & 3039/AHD/2008 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 14 CIT (A) AND ACCORDINGLY SHOULD NOT HAVE RAISED GROU ND IN THE APPEAL. HOWEVER, AFTER CONSIDERING FACTS WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THE ISSUE. 17. THE FOURTH GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF INTRODU CTION OF FRESH CAPITAL RS. 7,13,024/. THE AO MADE ADDITION AS NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION S WERE FURNISHED. THE CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION AS UNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AN D FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS COMPLETELY VAGUE ON THIS ADDITION, IT DOES NOT GIVE ANY DETAILS FROM WHERE DID THE AO ARRIVE AT THE FIGURE OF RS.7,13,02 4/-.THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT STATE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION BY WHICH PARTN ER OF HOW MUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADDED U/S. 68, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE APPELLA NT IS A FIRM CONSISTING OF THREE PARTNERS. EVEN IN REMAND REPORT, NO CLARITY H AS BEEN BROUGHT FORTH. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT THAT CAPI TAL CONTRIBUTION BY THE PARTNERS CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE FIRM U/ S. 68 SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, ESPECIALLY DECISION IN THE CASE OF M ETACHEM INDUSTRIES 245 ITR 160 (MP) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ONCE IT IS E STABLISHED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS INVESTED BY A PARTICULAR PERSON, WHETHER A PARTNER OR ANYBODY ELSE, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS OV ER AND ITS BURDEN IS DISCHARGED. SIMILARLY ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF JAISWAL MOTOR FINANCE 141 ITR 706 (ALLH.) THAT DEPOSITS IN PARTNERS ACCOUNT MADE BY PARTNER IS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION, ONUS PLACED ON ASSESSEE FIRM U/S. 68 DISCHARGED. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF PARTIE S AND RECORD PERUSED. WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) WHILE DELETING ADDITION FOLLO WED JUDGMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND AHMEDABAD HIGH COURT (SUPRA), REVENUE D ID NOT POINT OUT ANY CONTRARY JUDGMENT THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INF IRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A). THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IS CONFIRMED. ITA N O.2838 & 3039/AHD/2008 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 15 19. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10 - 2 - 2012 . SD/- SD/- (G. C. GUPTA) (A. L.GEHLOT) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD. ITA N O.2838 & 3039/AHD/2008 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 16 1.DATE OF DICTATION 7 - 2 -2012 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 7 / 2 / 2012 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S 8 - 2 -2012. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 10 - 2 -2012 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 10 - 2 -2012 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 0 - 2 -2012. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..