M/S. HAJI MOHAMMEDBHAI SULEMAN & CO, MUMBAI V. THE ITO WD 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2904/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: 290419914 RSA 2008
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 02-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V V SHASTRI
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK TRALSHWAL A
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Business income; Depreciation; Additional evidence
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2904/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) HAJI MOHAMMEDBHAI SULEMAN & CO., SHOP NO.2, AMINA APARTMENTS, 95-MEMONWADA ROAD, MUMBAI -400 003 ....... APPELLANT VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER WD 14(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI -400 020 ..... RESPONDENT PAN: AAAFH 3988 E APPELLANT BY: SHRI DEEPAK TRALSHWALA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI V.V. SHASTRI DATE OF HEARING: DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02.08.2011 16.09.2011 O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM: IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPU GNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) 14 MUMBAI DATED 01.02.2008 FOR T HE A.Y. 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING REVISE GROUNDS WHI CH READ AS UNDER:- 1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE APPELLANT OBJECTS TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONERS ORD ER IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER ON THE PREM ISE THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50(2) WAS EQUALLY APPLICABLE AS THE BLOCK OF ASSETS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS CE ASED TO EXIST ON 28.05.2004 ON SALE THEREOF AND THAT THE NE W ASSET PURCHASED BY THE RECONSTITUTED FIRM CANNOT BE TREAT ED AS FALLING WITHIN BLOCK OF ASSETS ITA 2904/MUM/2008 HAJI MOHAMMEDBHAI SULEMAN & CO. 2 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDER ED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50(2) CLEARLY STATE THAT THE ACQUISITION OF THE NEW ASSET IS TO BE MADE IN THE P REVIOUS YEAR, AND THUS HAS WRONGLY CONSIDERED THAT ON SALE OF THE OLD ASSET, BEFORE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET, THE BL OCK IS EXTINGUISHED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(11), TH ERE IS NEITHER AN EXPLICIT NOR IMPLIED CONDITION THAT THE ASSET SHOULD BE USED OF THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS DURING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE ASSET FALLS WITHIN THE BLOCK OF ASSETS. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THA T THERE WAS NO SURPLUS ON TRANSFER OF THE SHOP AT ZAVERI BA ZAR AS THE NET RESULT OF THE OPENING WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF ZAVERI BAZAR SHOP AND THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET PURCHASED IN THE SAME BLOCK EXCEEDS THE SALE VALUE OF THE OLD ZAVERI BAZAR SHOP. 5. HENCE, THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF PREMISES AT ZAV ERI BAZAR CANNOT BE TAXED AS SHORT CAPITAL GAINS UNDER SECTIO N 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS THERE IS A POSITIVE BAL ANCE IN THE SAID BLOCK OF ASSETS AND AS SUCH TAXABLE INCOME BE REDUCED BY ` 59,91,517/-. 2. THE FACTS WHICH REVEALED FROM THE RECORD ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WAS IN TRADING IN THE TEXTILES. THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNING THE COMMERCIAL PREMISES/SHOP AT ZAVERI BAZAR IN MUM BAI WHICH WAS SOLD FOR THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS 60 LAKHS VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 5.10.2004 AND PURCHASED NEW PREMISES FOR THE SALE ITA 2904/MUM/2008 HAJI MOHAMMEDBHAI SULEMAN & CO. 3 CONSIDERATION OF ` 62,17,500/- AND THE SAID NEW PREMISES WERE SITUATED AT TOWN CENTRE M.V. ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI. THE NEWLY PURCHASED PREMISES WERE GIVEN ON LEAVE AND LI CENSE BASIS TO M/S. BHW BIRLA HOUSE FINANCE LTD. FOR PERIOD FROM 9 .12.2004 TO 8.11.2006, ON THE MONTHLY LICENSE FEE OF ` 59,688/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO TOOK A REFUNDABLE INTEREST-FREE DEPOSIT OF ` 5,96,880/- FROM THE LICENSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE LICENS E FEE RECEIVED FROM THE RENTING-OUT THE NEW PREMISES ON THE LEAVE & LIC ENSE BASIS AS A BUSINESS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DECLARE ANY CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF THE SHOP/BUSINESS PREMISES AT ZAVERI BAZAR, MUMBAI. THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ZAVERI BAZ AR, MUMBAI WAS TREATED AS BLOCK-OF-ASSET AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REGU LARLY CLAIMING THE DEPRECIATION ON THE SAID BUSINESS PREMISES AND THE WDV AS ON 1.4.2004 WAS SHOWN AT ` 8,483/-. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE GAIN ON THE SALE OF THE BUSINESS PREMISES/SHOP AT ZAVERI BAZAR AS PER SALE DEED DATED 20.5.2004 WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXE D AS SHORT-TERM- CAPITAL-GAIN AS PER SEC. 50 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE A.O., ACCORDINGLY, CALLED FOR THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSE SSEE AS TO WHY THE SALE OF SHOP AT ZAVERI BAZAR SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS SHORT- TERM-CAPITAL-GAIN U/S.50. THE ASSESSE TOOK CONTENTI ON THAT AS NEW PREMISES PURCHASED BECOME PART OF THE BLOCK OF ASSE T WHICH PURCHASE PRICE WAS HIGHER AND IF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF T HE SOLD SHOP AT ZAVERI BAZAR IS REDUCED FROM THE BLOCK OF ASSET THE N THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY CAPITAL GAIN. THE A.O. REJECTED THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE REASON THAT THE NEW PREMISES PURCHASED BY TH E ASSESSEE CANNOT FORM PART OF THE BLOCK OF ASSET WITHIN THE M EANING OF SEC.2(11) OF THE ACT AS A NEW PREMISES WAS NEVER USED FOR ANY BUSINESS AS IT WAS LET OUT ON THE LEAVE AND LICENSES BASIS. THE A .O. WORKED OUT THE SHORT-TERM-CAPITAL-GAIN ON THE SALE PRICE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM ON THE SALE OF THE SHOP AT ZAVERI BAZAR AFTER REDUC ING THE WDV OF THE SAME AS ON 1.04.2004. THE A.O. ALSO REJECTED PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT LICENSE FEE AND SERVICE CHARGES ARE TO BE TREA TED AS A BUSINESS INCOME. THE A.O. WORKED OUT THE SHORT-TERM-CAPITAL -GAIN ON THE SALE ITA 2904/MUM/2008 HAJI MOHAMMEDBHAI SULEMAN & CO. 4 PRICE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM ON THE SALE OF THE SHOP AT ZAVERI BAZAR, MUMBAI AFTER REDUCING WDV OF THE SAME AS ON 1.04.2004. THE A.O. ALSO REJECTED PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT LICENS E FEE AND SERVICE CHARGES ARE TO BE TREATED AS A BUSINESS INCOME. TH E A.O. ASSESSED LICENSE FEE AND SERVICE CHARGES UNDER THE HEAD INC OME-FROM-HOUSE- PROPERTY AND GAVE THE ALLOWABLE STATUTORY DEDUCTIO N FOR REPAIRS AT 30%. THE A.O. FINALLY DETERMINED THE INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY AT ` 2,08,908/- AND SHORT-TERM-CAPITAL-GAIN ON THE SALE OF THE OLD SHOP AT ZAVERI BAZAR, MUMBAI AT ` 59,91,517/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEF ORE THE LD. CIT (A). SO FAR AS THE TAXABILITY OF THE SHORT-TER M-CAPITAL-GAIN IS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE ISSUE OF THE SHORT-TERM-CAPITAL-GAIN. THE OPERATIV E PART OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS AS UNDER:- 3.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND SUB MISSIONS. ADMITTEDLY, THE SHOP AT ZAVERI BAZAR STOOD SOLD ON 28.5.2004 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 60 LAKHS AND THE BLOCK OF ASSETS ON THAT DATE STOOD AT NIL. FURTHER, THERE W AS ALSO CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FIRM AS ONE OF TH E PARTNER NAMELY MOHD. SHAFI HAZI AHMED RETIRED FROM THE FIRM ON 31.8.04 AND HIS SHARE OF PROFIT ON SALE OF ASSETS A T ` 19,80,555/- WAS GIVEN TO HIM. ANOTHER PARTNER NAME LY YASMIN MOHD. JAFFER WAS ADMITTED INTO THE FIRM W.E. F. 1.9.2004. IT IS ALSO ADMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR THERE WAS NO BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT. THUS , IN EFFECT ON 28.5.2004, THE APPELLANT DISPOSED OFF ITS ENTIRE BLOCK OF ASSETS WHICH WAS USED FOR BUSINESS IN EARL IER YEARS AND ON WHICH DEPRECIATION HAD BEEN ALLOWED WI TH THE RESULT THAT THE W.D.V. OF THIS ASSET STOOD AT ` 8,462/- ONLY ON 1.4.2004. SUBSEQUENTLY, AFTER A GAP OF ABO UT FOUR MONTHS, APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED ANOTHER OFFICE PREM ISES ITA 2904/MUM/2008 HAJI MOHAMMEDBHAI SULEMAN & CO. 5 WHICH WAS LET OUT TO SOME OTHER PARTY ON PAYMENT OF LEAVE AND LICNECE FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES. THUS, IN THE INSTANT CASE IT HAS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THE BLOCK OF ASSETS IN APPELLANTS CASE CONTINUED TO EXIST OR IT CEASED WI TH THE SALE OF THE SHOP AT ZAVERI BAZAR. IN MY OPINION TH E CONCEPT OF BLOCK OF ASSETS IS RELEVANT ONLY WHILE DEALING W ITH THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINES S. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANTS BUSINESS STOOD CL OSED AND EVEN THE LAST ASSET OF THE BUSINESS I.E. THE SHOP S TOOD SOLD DURING THE YEAR. FURTHER EVEN THE PROFIT ARISING F ROM SUCH SALE OF LAST ASSET WAS INDUCTED. ANOTHER OFFICE PR EMISES STOOD PURCHASED BY THE RECONSTITUTED FIRM MUCH AFTE RWARDS AND THERE WAS NO BUSINESS OPERATION CARRIED ON BY T HE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS THE ACTION O F AO IN INVOKING SECTION 50 SEEMS JUSTIFIED. IN MY VIEW SE CTION 50(2) WAS EQUALLY APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE WH ICH LAYS DOWN 4. SO FAR AS ANOTHER ISSUE OF TREATMENT OF THE LICE NSE FEE / RENT, THE SAME WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) THAT IT HAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE A SSESSEE HAS ONLY CHALLENGED THE ISSUE OF SHORT-TERM-CAPITAL-GAIN ON THE SALE OF THE SHOP / BUSINESS PREMISES AT ZAVERI BAZAR, MUMBAI IN PRES ENT APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL AT THE FIRST INSTANCE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DESIRING TO FILE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E AND THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 29 TH JULY 2011 AND WITHOUT ANY INDEX; HAVE FILED XEROX COPIES OF SOME 17 DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE AL SO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT. THE LD. COUNSEL ARGUES THAT ALL THE DOC UMENTS ARE IMPORTANT TO PROVE THAT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004- 05, THE ASSESSEE ITA 2904/MUM/2008 HAJI MOHAMMEDBHAI SULEMAN & CO. 6 WAS CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS. HE, THEREFORE, PLEADE D FOR ADMITTING ALL THE DOCUMENTS (XEROX COPIES ARE FILED). 6. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE LD. D.R. WHO VEHEMENTLY O PPOSED FOR ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITS THAT IT IS CERTAINLY STRANGE THAT WHEN ALL THESE DOCUMENTS WERE IN EXISTENCE FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05, THEN WHAT PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SAID THE DOCUMENT S BEFORE THE A.O. OR THE LD. CIT (A). HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT ON THE PERUSAL OF THE XEROX COPIES WHICH IN THE FORM OF CORRESPONDENCE, IT IS S EEN THAT THE SAME IS NOT GENUINE BUT CREATED EVIDENCE TO MAKE OUT A CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS. HE SUBMITS THAT ON THE PERUSAL OF THE XEROX COPIES IN THE FORM OF CORRESPONDENCE, IT IS S EEN THAT SAME ARE NOT GENUINE BUT CREATED/FABRICATED DOCUMENTS TO MAK E OUT A CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS IN P REVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2005-06. LD DR STRONGLY OPPOSED FO R ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE B OTH THE PARTIES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ADMITTED. ASSESSE HAS FILED XEROX COPIES OF FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: (I) BHAIRAV TEXTILE LETTER DATED 9.4.2004; (II) HAJI MOHD.BHAI SULEMAN & CO. (ASSESSE E) LETTTER. DT. 19.4.2004; (III) COPY OF INVOICE NO.48 DATED 28.4.2004 FROM B HAIRAV TEXTILE; (IV) BILL NO. 1160 OF UDAY TEXTILES DATED 27.8.2 004 (V) BILL NO. 163/04-05 OF ALISHA FASHION DT. 2 6.05.2004. (VI) BILL NO. 76/04-05 OF BALAJI FASHION DATED 15. 4.2004 (SAME WAY XEROX COPIES & ALLEGED BILLS OF SOME PAR TIES) ON THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE XEROX COPIES, WE FIND T HAT ALL SO CALLED DOCUMENTS ARE PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2004 AND THERE IS NO INWARD ITA 2904/MUM/2008 HAJI MOHAMMEDBHAI SULEMAN & CO. 7 NUMBER IN ANY OF THE DOCUMENT. IT IS ALSO SEEN THA T IF THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE ASSESSEE THEN WHY THE SAME WERE NOT FILED EITHER BEFORE THE A.O. OR LD. CIT (A ). HENCE, THE GENUINENESS OF THE SO CALLED DOCUMENTS IS DOUBTFUL. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASONABLE EXPLANATION WHY THE SAID D OCUMENTS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, WE DECLINE TO ADMIT THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE (XEROX COPIES) IN THE FORM OF THE DOCUMENT S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAID DO CUMENTS ARE CREATED BY THE ASSESSEES AFTER-THOUGHT TO MAKE-OUT A CASE THAT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05, THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING O UT A BUSINESS, AFTER SHOP AT ZAVERI BAZAR, MUMBAI WAS SOLD OUT. 9. NOW, WE PROCEED TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE ON THE ME RIT. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE STOPPE D HIS BUSINESS/TRADING ACTIVITIES IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2 003-04 ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE SOLD SHOP AT THE ZAVERI BAZAR MUMBAI IN TH E FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 AND PURCHASED OTHER COMMERCIAL PREMISES AND LET OUT THE SAME ON THE LEAVE AND LICENSE BASIS. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT THE NEW PREMISES FORMED THE PART OF THE BLOCK OF ASSET. THE BENCH PUT THE QUERY TO THE LD. COUNSEL THAT AFT ER SALE OF THE SHOP AT THE ZAVERI BAZAR WHETHER THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WAS H AVING ANY BUSINESS PREMISES TO CARRY OUT THE BUSINESS ACTIVIT Y. LD. COUNSEL REPLIED THAT HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT IT. SO FAR AS PLEA THAT THE NEW BUSINESS PREMISES FORMED THE PART OF THE BLOCK OF A SSET, THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATI ON IS CONSIDERED U/S.32 OF THE ACT AND SEC.32 RECOGNIZES BLOCK OF A SSETS FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE DEPRECIATION. ONE OF TH E CONDITION FOR ALLOWING A DEPRECIATION IS THAT THE ASSET MUST BE U SED FOR THE PURPOSE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO MAKE OUT A CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING BUSI NESS ON THE COMMISSION BASIS BUT THE FACTS REMAINS THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NO ITA 2904/MUM/2008 HAJI MOHAMMEDBHAI SULEMAN & CO. 8 BUSINESS SETUP AFTER THE SALE OF THE SOLE SHOP AT T HE ZAVERI BAZAR IN MUMBAI. MOREOVER, THE NEW PREMISES PURCHASED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI WERE IMMEDIATELY LET OUT ON THE LEAVE & LICENSE BASIS FOR THE PERIOD OF 23 MONTHS. THERE I S NOT EVEN SINGLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A FTER THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW PREMISES THE SAME WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSE AS ADMITTEDLY SAME WERE LET OUT. HEN CE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT (A) RIGHTLY REJECTED THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NEW PREMISES PURCHASED BY THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT FORM PART OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS THOUGH THE ASSES SEE TRIED TO MAKE OUT A CASE TO ESCAPE FROM CAPITAL GAIN TAX LIABILITY, B Y CLAIMING THAT THE LICENSE FEE RECEIVED FROM LETTING OUT THE NEW PREMI SE IS TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME BUT THE SAME WAS ALSO REJECTED BY T HE A.O. AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT (A) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND ON THE SAID ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 10. AFTER GIVING OUR ANXIOUS CONSIDERATION TO THE T OTALITY OF THE FACTS, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS ALL THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 1 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- ( P.M. JAGTAP ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER 2011 ITA 2904/MUM/2008 HAJI MOHAMMEDBHAI SULEMAN & CO. 9 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)XIV, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT- MC - XIV, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. H BENCH, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN ITA 2904/MUM/2008 HAJI MOHAMMEDBHAI SULEMAN & CO. 10 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 06.09.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 09.09.2011 SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER