The ITO, Ward-1(3), JAMNAGAR V. M/s Royal Recycling Industries, JAMNAGAR

ITA 40/RJT/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6880 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH PANDEY
• Assessee Lawyers: MJ RANPURA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 10B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [ CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD ] , !'# $,%!&' BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER #./ I.T.A. NO.40/RJT/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3) JAMNAGAR / VS. M/S. ROYAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES PLOT NO.347, GIDC, PHASE-II DARED, JAMNAGAR !* # ./ # ./ PAN/GIR NO. AADFR 8234 N ( *, / APPELLANT ) .. ( -*, / RESPONDENT ) *,. / APPELLANT BY : SHRI YOGESH PANDEY, CIT-DR -*,/. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.J. RANPURA, AR 01/2 / DATE OF HEARING 09/08/2017 34 /2 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11/09/2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL IS DIRECTED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-JA MNAGAR, [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 20/11/2014 IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER ITA NO. 40 /RJT /2015 ITO VS. M/S.ROYAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 2 - S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER R EFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 29/03/2014 TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12. 2. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE C IT(A) IN REVERSING THE ACTION OF AO IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIO N CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.10B OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE A PARTNERSHIP-FIRM, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE/PRODUCTION OF ARTICLE OR T HINGS NAMELY SCRAP INGOTS AND PARTS. REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE ST ATED TO BE MAINTAINED AND DULY AUDITED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO BE 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT (EO U) AND STATED TO HAVE COMMENCED ITS COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION/MANUFACTUR E FROM 03/04/2001 RELEVANT TO AY 2002-03. THE RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE AY 2011-12 WAS FILED DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.61,6 30/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION/EXEMPTION UNDER S.10B OF THE ACT AMOUNTIN G TO RS.9,50,53,560/-. THE RETURN WAS SUBJECTED TO SCRU TINY ASSESSMENT. THE AO REJECTED THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF DEDUCTION/EXEMPT ION CLAIMED UNDER S.10B OF THE ACT ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE 11 TH YEAR OF PRODUCTION AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS N OT ENTITLED TO AFORESAID EXEMPTION/DEDUCTION. ITA NO. 40 /RJT /2015 ITO VS. M/S.ROYAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 3 - 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE MOVED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN LENGTH AND FOUND ON FA CTS THAT FIRST YEAR OF MANUFACTURE WAS FINANCIAL YEAR (FY) 2001-02 VIZ. AY 2002-03 AND THEREFORE IMPUGNED AY 2011-12 IS TENTH YEAR OF MANU FACTURE/PRODUCTION. THE CIT(A) NOTED WITH REFERENCE TO COPY OF ACCOUN TS RELEVANT TO FY 2000-01 (AY 2001-02) THAT THERE WAS NO MACHINERY OR OTHER FIXED ASSETS EXCEPT SHEDS ALLOTTED BY THE GIDC. THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE NO CLAIM TOWARDS DEPRECIATION AND NO PROFIT OR LOSS ARISING FROM THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN FY 2000-01 (AY 001 -02). THE CIT(A) ALSO TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY T HE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE TO APPRECIATE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE YEAR OF MANUFACTURE/PRODUCTION STARTED IN FY 2001-02 (AY 2 002-03) AND HENCE THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE 10 TH YEAR. THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DEALING WITH THE ISSUE READ AS UNDER: FACTS OF THE CASE; 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT, THE APPELLANT, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING / PROCESSING OF SCRAP ING OTS AND PARTS, AND REGISTERED AS 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT (EOU) HAD FILED ITS RETUR N OF INCOME ON 29.09.2011 DECLARING THEREIN TOTAL INCOME AT RS 61,630/- AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT AT RS 9,50,53,560/-. THE AO, VIDE ORDER U/S. 14 3(3) OF THE ACT DATED 29.03.2014 ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS 9,50,53,560/- WHERE IN HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE ELEVENTH YEAR OF PRODUCTION AND HENCE THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION. APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION; ITA NO. 40 /RJT /2015 ITO VS. M/S.ROYAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 4 - 5. BEFORE ME, THE ID. AR OF THE APPELLANT FILED WRI TTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- '(A) THE APPELLANT IS A 100 % EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT (EOU) AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT AT RS 9,49,91,927/- BEING THE TE NTH YEAR OF COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURE ACTIVITIES. (B) THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM BY ALLEGING TH AT IN AUDIT REPORT GIVEN IN FORM 56G THE AUDITOR HAS MENTIONED DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF M ANUFACTURE / PRODUCTION AS 26.12.2000 RELEVANT TO AY 2001-02. HE HELD THAT THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE 11 TH ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF M ANUFACTURE OF PRODUCTION, EXEMPTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT IS NOT ALLOWABLE. (C) IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS :!, FURNISHED THE VARIOUS EVIDENCES TO THE EFFECT THAT IN FACT TH E COMMENCEMENT OF ;| MANUFACTURE / PRODUCTION WAS STARTED ON 03.04.2001 RELEVANT TO AY 2002-03 AND AS SUCH THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE TENTH YEAR OF COMMENCEME NT OF MANUFACTURE / PRODUCTION AND HENCE EXEMPTION U/S 10B IS ALLOWABLE. THE AO DI SCUSSED THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION AS ALSO HIS VIEWS IN THE BODY OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER HENCE FOR SAKE OF BREVITY THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED. (D) THE BASIC ISSUE IS THAT AS TO WHETHER THE MANUF ACTURE OR PRODUCTION WAS COMMENCEMENT ON 26.12.2000 OR FROM 03.04.2001. THE AUDITOR HAS MENTIONED THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION A S 26.12.2000, HOWEVER FOR THAT IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT IT WAS INADVERTENT MISTAKE WH ICH CAN BE SEEN FROM THE COLUMN 8 OF THE FORM 56G WHEREIN IT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONE D THAT 'THIS IS THE TENTH YEAR IN WHICH THE DEDUCTION IS CLAIMED.' THUS PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE DEMANDS TO READ A DOCUMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY AND NOT IN PIECE MEAL. FUR THER THE AO ALSO FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPELLAN T HAD CLAIMED THE FIRST EXEMPTION U/S 10B IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 FROM THE REC ORDS MAINTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT. (E) IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION IN THE TENTH Y EAR THE APPELLANT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FURNISHED A COPY OF CENTRAL SALES TAX (REGISTRATION & TURNOVER) RULES 1957 CERTIFICATE DATED 21.04.2001 ( COPY ATTACHED) WHEREIN IT WAS SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THIS CERTIFICATE IS VALID FROM 03.04.2001 UNTIL IT IS CANCELLED. THE AO TERMED THIS CERTIFICATE AS MERE A REGISTRATI ON AS A TRADER AND HAS NO RELEVANCE FOR PROVING THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF M ANUFACTURE. THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT AS FAR AS COM MENCEMENT OF TRADING / MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES ARE CONCERNED THE SAME STA RTS FROM THE VALID PURCHASE OF ITA NO. 40 /RJT /2015 ITO VS. M/S.ROYAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 5 - RAW MATERIAL AND INPUT THEREOF AND SUBSEQUENTLY GET SET OFF FROM THE FINAL PRODUCTION. THUS, IT IS THE VITAL CERTIFICATE FOR THE TRADER. T HE INCOME TAX AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS ARE COME IN TO PLAY ONLY WHEN THE FINAL ACCOUNTS AR E PREPARED AND RETURN OF INCOME IS FILED. WHEREAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMENCEMENT O F MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION WITH SALES TAX DEPARTME NT IS ABSOLUTE NEED TO CLAIM SET OFF AS WELL AS SUBSIDY ETC. PARTICULARLY IN THE CASES L IKE THE ASSESSEE HAVING 100 % EOU WHERE THE RAW MATERIAL IS IMPORTED ONE. SINCE THE C ST CERTIFICATE IS VALID FROM 03.04.2001 THE APPELLANT WAS PROHIBITED FROM DOING ANY MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES BEFORE THAT DATE. THUS, EXCEPT IN THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 56G IN ALL THE DOCUMENTS THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURE OF PRODUCTION I S 03.04.2001 WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS CANNOT BE A COOKED UP STORY OR SELF SERVING EXERCISE AS ALLEGED. (E) FURTHER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT FURNISHED A COPY OF ROI FOR AY 2000-01 WHEREIN THE INCOME RETURNED IS N IL IN ALL RESPECT INCLUDING THE GROSS PROFIT AND ALLOCATION OF PROFIT AMONGST PARTN ERS. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE FOR-.THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION MAY BE NIL, BUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE SHARE OF P ROFIT/LOSS IS ALLOCATED AMONGST PARTNERS IN REALITY. HERE THE PROFIT ALLOCATED TO P ARTNERS IS ALSO NIL. HAD THE APPELLANT COMMENCED THE MANUFACTURE THE PRODUCTION THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SOME FIGURES OF PROFIT OR LOSS OR THE UNABSORBED DEPRECI ATION TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THERE IS NO SUCH EVENT AND AS SUCH IT CANNOT BE EVEN PRESUMED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD COMMENCED MANUFACTURE OF PRODUCTI ON BEFORE 31.03.2001. (F) THE APPELLANT ALSO FURNISHES HEREWITH COPY OF S CHEDULE-D OF FIXED ASSET [COPY ATTACHED] OF THE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 .03.2002. IT MAY BE OBSERVED FROM THIS SCHEDULE THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ACCOUNTI NG YEAR THERE WAS NO MACHINERY INCLUDING THE ELECTRIC FITTINGS, GENERATOR AND SHED CONSTRUCTION IN EXISTENCE. ONLY A SHED VALUED AT RS 8,64,273/- WAS ALLOTTED BY GIDC I N THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR WHICH HAS BEEN CARRIED FORWARD TO FY 2001-02. ALL T HE MACHINERIES, ELECTRICAL FITTINGS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF SHED TOOK PLACE IN FY 2001- 02 RELEVANT TO AY 2002-03. THUS, EVEN IF THE APPELLANT WISH TO MANUFACTURE ANY ARTIC LE OR THING IN FY 2000-01 RELEVANT TO AY 2001-02, IT WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO DO SO. T HUS, EVEN UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT CAN BE SAID THAT TH ERE WAS NO COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-01 RELEVANT TO AY 2001-02. (G) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE POSITION EMERGES FROM THE RECORDS, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS THE 10 TH YEAR OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH IT IS PRAYED TO RESTORE THE RETURNED INCOME. RELIANCE PLA CED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS: ITA NO. 40 /RJT /2015 ITO VS. M/S.ROYAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 6 - THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAD THE OCCASION TO INTERPRET THE BENEFICIARY PROVISION OF SECTION 15C OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX A CT, 1922, IN THE CASE OF BAJAJ TEMPO LTD. VS. CIT 196 ITR 188. THE RELEVANT PART O F THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE COURT IS REPRODUCED BELOW (FROM THE HEAD NOTES): 'SECTION 15C OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922, RE AD AS A WHOLE, IS A PROVISION DIRECTED TOWARDS ENCOURAGING INDUSTRIALIZATION BY P ERMITTING AN ASSESSEE SETTING UP A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING TO CLAIM RELIEF FROM TAX TO THE EXTENT OF TAX ON SIX PERCENT OF THE CAPITAL EMPLOYED EVERY YEAR. BUT THE LEGISLA TURE TOOK CARE TO RESTRICT SUCH BENEFIT ONLY TO THOSE UNDERTAKINGS WHICH WERE NEW I N FORM AND SUBSTANCE, BY PROVIDING THAT THE UNDERTAKING SHOULD NOT BE 'FORME D' IN ANY MANNER PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (I) OF SECTION 15C(2). BY THAT CLAUSE, THE L EGISLATURE INTENDED TO CONTROL ANY ATTEMPT OR EFFORT TO ABUSE THE BENEFIT INTENDED FOR NEW UNDERTAKINGS BY CHANGING OF LABEL. THE INTENTION WAS NOT TO DENY 'THE BENEFIT T O GENUINE NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS BUT TO CONTROL THE MISCHIEF WHICH MIGH T HAVE OTHERWISE TAKEN PLACE. ADOPTING A LITERAL CONSTRUCTION WOULD RESULT IN DEF EATING THE VERY PURPOSE OF SECTION 15C. THEREFORE, IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO RESORT TO A CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS REASONABLE AND PURPOSIVE TO MAKE THE PROVISION MEANINGFUL. THE INITIAL EXERCISE, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE UNDERTAKING WAS N EW. ONCE THIS TEST IS SATISFIED, THEN CLAUSE (I) SHOULD BE APPLIED REASONABLY AND LI BERALLY KEEPING IN VIEW THE SPIRIT OF SECTION 15C(1). . .. .. A PROVISION IN A TAXING STATUTE GRANTING INCENTIVES FOR PROMOTING GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY; AND SINC E A PROVISION FOR PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH HAS TO BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY, TH E RESTRICTION ON IT TOO HAS TO BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO ADVANCE THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PRO VISION AND NOT TO FRUSTRATE IT' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED). HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GWALIO R RAYON SILK MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. 196 ITR 149 AND THE RATIO OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IS REPRODUCED BELOW (FROM THE HEAD NOTES) : 'IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE EXPRESSIONS USED IN A T AXING STATUTE WOULD ORDINARILY BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH IT IS HARMONIOU S WITH THE OBJECT OF THE STATUTE TO EFFECTUATE THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION. IT IS EQUALLY SETTLED LAW THAT, IF THE LANGUAGE IS PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS, ONE CAN ONLY LOO K FAIRLY AT THE LANGUAGE USED AND INTERPRET IT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE LEGISLA TIVE INTENTION. NEVERTHELESS, TAX LAWS HAVE TO BE INTERPRETED REASONABLY AND IN CONSO NANCE WITH JUSTICE ADOPTING ITA NO. 40 /RJT /2015 ITO VS. M/S.ROYAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 7 - A PURPOSIVE APPROACH. THE CONTEXTUAL MEANING HAS TO BE ASCERTAINED AND GIVEN EFFECT TO. A PROVISION FOR DEDUCTION EXEMPTION OR R ELIEF SHOULD BE CONSTRUED REASONABLY AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE'. (EMPHASI S SUPPLIED). HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. G UJARAT OIL AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES 201 ITR 325. IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 8 0-3(1) READ WITH SUB- SECTION (6A) THEREOF, THE HON'BLE COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER (FROM THE HEAD NOTES) : '......IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE MAIN PURPOSE AND OBJE CT OF SECTION 803(1) IS TO GIVE INCENTIVE AND DEVELOPMENT BENEFIT TO THE NEW INDUST RIES COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, WHILE CONSIDER ING IT, CARE HAS TO BE TAKEN TO SEE THAT THE RELEVANT PURPOSE UNDERLYING SECTION 803 IS AUGMENTED AND FORTIFIED AND NOT FRUSTRATED BY THE CONSTRUCTION PU T UPON THE SAID PROVISION. EVEN ASSUMING THAT ANOTHER VIEW IS POSSIBLE ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECOND PART OF SUB-SECTION (6A) OF SECTION 80J, AS THAT VI EW IS LIKELY TO FRUSTRATE THE VERY OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE SCHEME UNDERLYING SE CTION 80J(1) AND WOULD RESULT IN ABSURDITY, THE OTHER VIEW BY WHICH THE BE NEFICIAL PROVISION OF SECTION 80J(1) IS MADE FULLY OPERATIVE SHOULD BE PREFERRE D. HENCE, THE WORD 'SHALL' AS EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN SUB-SECTION (6A) OF SECTION 803(1) WILL HAVE TO BE READ AS 'MAY'(EMPHASIS SUPPLIED). THE HON'BLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . CHANDA DIESELS 216 ITR 639 OBSERVED THAT SECTION 80HH IS INTENDED TO E NCOURAGE SETTING UP NEW INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES, HENCE, WILL HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY IN A BROAD COMMERCIAL SENSE, KEEPING ITS OBJECT IN VIEW. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MYSORE MINERAL S LTD. VS. CIT 239 ITR 775, HAS HELD THAT A PROVISION ENACTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF AN ASSESSEE SHOULD BE SO CONSTRUED WHICH ENABLES THE ASSESSEE T O GET ITS BENEFITS.' DECISION: 6. I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND TH E WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ID. AR OF THE APPELLANT. 6.1 IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT, THE AO HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF THE REMARK APPEARING IN FORM NO 56G OF THE AUDITOR. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, WHEN THIS ISSUE WAS SHOW CAUSED TO THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT HAD STATED THAT THIS REMARK APPEARING IN FORM NO 56G WA S INADVERTENTLY CAUSED AND THAT, ITA NO. 40 /RJT /2015 ITO VS. M/S.ROYAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 8 - THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION / MANUFACTURING STARTED AFTER THE RECEIPT OF APPROVAL FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, WHO HAD ISSUED REGISTRATION C ERTIFICATE ON 3.4.2001. THEREFORE, THE FIRST YEAR OF MANUFACTURE WAS FY 200 1-02 VIZ., AY 2002-03.. THE APPELLANT ALSO PRODUCED A COPY OF ITS ACCOUNTS, AS PER WHICH, DURING AY 2001-02 THERE WERE NO MACHINERY, FIXED ASSETS EXCEPT SHED A LLOTTED BY THE GIDC, NO CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION, NO PROFIT OR LOSS, NO CLAIM OF UNABSO RBED DEPRECIATION, ETC. THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO PRODUCED PROOF OF CERTIFICATE IS SUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE IN SUPPORT OF ITS ARGUMENTS THAT, THE YEAR O F MANUFACTURE WAS INDEED AY 2002- 03 AND HENCE, THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE T ENTH YEAR. THE AO HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUN D THAT, THE DOCUMENTS SO PRODUCED WERE AFTER THOUGHTS, SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS AND THA T, THE AUDITOR'S REPORT UNDER FORM NO 56G IS FINAL, WHICH IS GIVEN BY THE AUDITOR YEAR AFTER YEAR, SINCE LAST 10 YEARS. HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION. 6.2 BEFORE ME, THE ID. AR CONTENDED THAT, THE REMAR K OF THE AUDITOR MADE IN FORM NO 56G HAS BEEN MADE INADVERTENTLY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMIT TED THAT, COL. NO.8 OF FORM NO 56G STATES THAT THIS IS THE 10 TH YEAR OF OPERATION. THEREFORE RELY ON THE BASIS OF CLERICAL ERROR, THE CLAIM CAN NOT BE DENIED. THE ID. AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, LAID STRESS ON THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY HIM, IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS. 6.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED IN THIS REGARD. I FIND THAT, THE AR HAS PRODUCED COPY OF THE SALES TAX REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE, AS PER WHICH, THE FIRM WAS ALLOWED TO OPERATE AS 'MANUFACTURER' FROM 3.4.2001. THIS CERTIFICATE IS FORMING PART OF THE P APER BOOK. AS PER THIS DOCUMENT, THE VALIDITY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT STARTS FROM 3.4.2001. IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT WITHOUT GETTING SALES TAX REGIST RATION, THE APPELLANT CANNOT COMMENCE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. THE AO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THIS CERTIFICATE IS A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT. IN FACT, IT IS A DOCUMENT IS SUED BY A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL OF A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS A VALID PIECE OF EV IDENCE AS PER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872. SECTION 35 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT HO LDS RELEVANCY OF ENTRY IN PUBLIC RECORD OR AN ELECTRONIC RECORD MADE IN PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY. ACCORDING TO THIS SECTION, ANY ENTRY IN ANY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICIAL BOOK, REGISTER OR RECORD OR AN ELECTRONIC RECORD, STATING A FACT IN ISSUE OR RELEV ANT FACT, AND MADE BY A PUBLIC SERVANT IN DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTY, OR BY AN Y OTHER PERSON IN PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY SPECIALLY ENJOINED BY THE LAW OF THE COUNTRY I N WHICH SUCH BOOK, REGISTER, OR RECORD IS KEPT, IS ITSELF A RELEVANT FACT. THUS, TH E AO ERRED BY HOLDING THAT, THIS IS A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT. ITA NO. 40 /RJT /2015 ITO VS. M/S.ROYAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 9 - 6.4 SECONDLY, THE BALANCE SHEET OF AY 2001-02 ONLY SHOWS FACTORY SHED. THERE IS NO OTHER ASSET. WHEREAS, THE BALANCE SHEET FOR AY 2002 -03 SHOWS ADDITIONS OF SHED CONSTRUCTION, MACHINERIES, ELECTRICAL FITTINGS AND OTHER ALLIED EQUIPMENTS. THEREFORE, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT ALL THESE IMPLEMENTS REQUIRE D FOR COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION HAS BEEN ACQUIRED IN AY 2002-03. THIS AUDITED ACCOU NTS FORMS PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THIS IS AVA ILABLE WITH THE AO. HE COULD HAVE CROSS VERIFIED THIS FACT, INSTEAD OF MAKING A PASSING REMARK THAT THE EVIDENCES ARE SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS. 6.5 THIRDLY, THE ACCOUNTS FOR AY 2001-02 SHOWS NO P ROFIT OR LOSS, NO PURCHASES OR SALES, NO INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE AND NO CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. THIS IS ONLY THE YEAR IN WHICH THE BUSINESS WAS SET UP. BUT THE MANUFACTU RING ACTIVITIES COMMENCED FROM AY 2002-03 ONLY. IT WAS HELD IN KANODIA AND SONS VS . CIT (2006) 281 ITR 255 (ALL) THAT THE YEAR IN WHICH THE BUSINESS WAS SET UP CAN NOT BE TREATED AS THE FIRST YEAR, WHICH HAS TO BE RECKONED ONLY FROM THE YEAR OF ACTU AL PRODUCTION IN THE CONTEXT OF RELIEF. IT WOULD THEREFORE MEAN THAT THE YEAR IN WH ICH IT IS SET UP, CAN BE DIFFERENT FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION COMMEN CES FOR PURPOSES OF RECKONING ELIGIBLE PERIOD OF RELIEF, AN INFERENCE, CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF RELIEF. 6.6 THEREFORE, AGAINST AN INADVERTENT REMARK MADE B Y THE AUDITOR (ALTHOUGH COL. NO. 8 OF FORM NO 56G STATES THAT THIS IS THE 10 TH YEAR OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES), THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES WHICH PROVE THAT THE YEAR OF COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION WAS AY 2002-03. THEREFOR E, THIS BEING THE TENTH YEAR, THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/ S. 10B OF THE I T ACT. HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE REVERSAL OF ACTION OF AO BY CI T(A) WHEREBY THE DEDUCTION UNDER S.10B OF THE ACT WAS RESTORED, REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD.CIT-DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) MISDIRECTED ITSELF IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.DR CONTENDED THAT CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ITA NO. 40 /RJT /2015 ITO VS. M/S.ROYAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 10 - SALES TAX REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT DATE OF MANUFACTURE TO BE FROM 03/04/2001. THE CORRECT DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS WOULD BE THE DATE ON W HICH THE ASSESSEE INTIMATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, KANDLA F REE TRADE ZONE IN PURSUANCE OF ITS AGREEMENT DATED 03/08/2000. THE L D.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE MACHINERY EVEN ON 03/04/2 001 AND THEREFORE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT CANNOT BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE OF REGISTRATION WITH THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES BY THAT STANDARD. THE LD .DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE BALANCE-SHEET SHOWS ON LY FACTORY SHED AS ON 31/03/2001. HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSEE COULD BE M ANUFACTURER ON 03/04/2001 WITH THE SAME FACTORY SHED FOR THE PURPO SES OF SALES TAX AUTHORITIES, IT COULD BE A MANUFACTURER/PRODUCER ON ANY EARLIER DATE ALSO WITH THE SAME SHED. LD.DR ASSERTED THAT THE CASE MA DE OUT BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE A MANUFACTURER W ITH ONLY A FACTORY SHED, ARE THUS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS. THE LD.DR R EFERRED TO AGREEMENT DATED 03/08/2000 GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE MINIS TRY OF COMMERCE TO ENABLE IT FOR PLACING THE ORDER FOR IMPORT OR TO EN ABLE IT EXECUTE THE ORDER OF EXPORT TO SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN A POSI TION TO EXECUTE THE MANUFACTURE/PRODUCTION. THE DR NEXT CONTENDED THA T AS PER CERTIFICATE IN FORM 56G FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE DATE OF COMM ENCEMENT OF BUSINESS IS 26/12/2000 WHICH SUPPORTS THE CASE OF T HE AO. THE WARE HOUSING LICENSE HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE CENTRAL EX CISE DEPARTMENT W.E.F.08/12/2000 WHICH ALSO SUPPORTS THAT THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT ITA NO. 40 /RJT /2015 ITO VS. M/S.ROYAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 11 - WAS IN THE FY 2000-01 AND NOT IN 2001-02. THE LD.D R ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ACCEPTE D THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS ACTUAL COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURI NG/PRODUCTION ACTIVITY IN THE FY 2002-03. 7. THE LD.AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE RE WAS AN INADVERTENT ERROR IN THE CERTIFICATE OF THE ACCOUNT ANT ABOUT THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS FROM 26/12/2000 IN PLACE O F 03/04/2001. THUS, THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE 10 TH YEAR OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, OTHER THAN TH E AFORESAID CERTIFICATE, FROM THE ACCOUNTANT, ALL OTHER FACTUAL EVIDENCES CLEARLY SUPPORT THE YEAR OF COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION TO BE IN FY 2002-03. AS POINTED OUT, THE SALES TAX REGI STRATION CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN OBTAINED IN FY 2002-03. THE LD.AR NEXT RELIED UPON THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME 2000-01 TO DEMONSTRATE THAT NO BUS INESS WHATSOEVER WAS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE DURING FY 2001-02. THUS, NO MANUFACTURE/PRODUCTION WAS CARRIED OUT. THE LD.AR A LSO ADVERTED TO THE FIXED ASSET SCHEDULE FOR THE FY 2001-02 FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO MACHINERY INCLUDING THE ELEC TRIC FITTINGS, GENERATOR AND SHED CONSTRUCTION WAS AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FY 2002-03. ONLY A SHED VALUE OF MEAGER AMOUNT OF RS.8,64,273/- ALLOTTED BY GIDC WAS SHOWN IN THE IMM EDIATE PRECEDING ITA NO. 40 /RJT /2015 ITO VS. M/S.ROYAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 12 - FY 2000-01 AND CARRIED FORWARD TO THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS IN FY 2001-02. ALL THE MACHINERIES, ELECTRIC FITTINGS AND THE CONS TRUCTION OF SHED ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE IN FY 2001-02 RELEVANT TO AY 2002-03. T HE LD.AR EXHORTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MACHINERY OR BUSINESS SET UP, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING IN FY 2000-01 RELEVANT TO AY 2001-02 AS CONTEMPLAT ED UNDER S.10B OF THE ACT. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PERMISSION F OR COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION WAS INITIALLY GIVEN FOR PLOT NO.267 GIDC PHASE-II DARED, JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT VIDE LETTER DATED 18/07/2000. HO WEVER, NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT AT PLOT N O.267 GIDC TILL 31/03/2001. TO SUPPORT THE AFORESAID ASSERTION, TH E LD.AR REFERRED TO COPIES OF SCREEN-SHOTS OF CONSUMER PERSONAL LEDGER FROM SYSTEM OF GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD AND COPIES OF ELECTRICITY BILLS FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ELECTRIC METER WAS N OTED AS LOCKED AND THEREFORE IMPLIEDLY NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY COULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT. THE LOCATION FOR MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY WAS L ATER SHIFTED FROM PLOT NO.267 TO PLOT NO.347 FOR WHICH THE PERMISSION WAS GRANTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER KANDLA FREE TRADE ZONE VID E LETTER DATED 13/06/2001. THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY COULD BE ST ARTED ONLY THEREAFTER. THE LD.AR RELIED UPON THE SAMPLE ELECTRICITY BILL F OR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER-2001 TO SHOW THAT THE CONSUMPTION OF ELECT RICITY STARTED ONLY DURING THAT MONTH AND ONWARDS. THERE WAS HARDLY EL ECTRIC CONSUMPTION IN THE PAST. THE LD.AR THEREAFTER REFERRED TO RETU RN OF INCOME FOR AY ITA NO. 40 /RJT /2015 ITO VS. M/S.ROYAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 13 - 2001-02 AND SUBMITTED THAT NO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UN DER S.10B OF THE ACT WAS MADE FOR THE FY 2001-02 AS NO BUSINESS ACTI VITY WAS CARRIED OUT AT ALL. THE LD.AR THEREAFTER SUBMITTED THAT SECTIO N 10B IS A BENEFICIAL PROVISION TO ENCOURAGE ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTURING/PR OCESSING AS A 100% EOU AND FOR PROMOTION OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT AN D THEREFORE MERELY BECAUSE AN INADVERTENT ERROR WAS CREPT IN TH E ACCOUNTANTS CERTIFICATE, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER S.10B OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED ON THE FACE OF SUCH GLARING FACTS. THE L D.AR THUS SUBMITTED THAT NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CA LLED FOR. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE MATERIA L REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF HEARING. THE BASIC ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS WHETHER MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION WAS COMMENCED IN FY 2000- 01 OR IN FY 2001-02. IT IS THE CASE OF THE AO THAT ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION COMMENCED ON 26/12/2000 AS REPORTED IN T HE CERTIFICATE OF ACCOUNTANT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE ASS ESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON MULTIPLE DOCUMENTS TO ESTABLISH T HAT MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OR ARTICLES OR THINGS COULD NOT HAVE COM MENCED IN THE FY 2000-01 AS ALLEGED BY THE REVENUE. IT IS THE CASE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO PLANT OR MACHINERY OR ELECTRIC FIT TINGS WAS AVAILABLE AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO ENABLE IT TO BE ENG AGED IN ANY KIND OF MANUFACTURE OF PRODUCTION IN AY 2000-01 AS CAN BE S EEN FROM THE ITA NO. 40 /RJT /2015 ITO VS. M/S.ROYAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 14 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER CASE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ELECTRIC BILLS ALSO SUPPORT THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE FY 2000-01. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON CERTIFICATE FROM THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES ISSUED IN FY 2001-02 TO BUTTRESS ITS C LAIM OF COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION IN FY 2002-03. THE AS SESSEE HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT PLOT ORIGINALLY ALLOTTED IN FY 200 0-01 FOR COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION COULD NOT BE UTILIZED FOR COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURE/PRODUCTION AND THE UNI T WAS LATER SHIFTED TO ANOTHER PLOT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE CO MPETENT AUTHORITY IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR. SIGNIFICANTLY, THE ASSE SSEE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPA RTMENT TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE OF NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN THE FY 2000-01. ON CONCEPTUOUS OF THESE FACTS, THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FA VOUR OF ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT YEAR OF MANUFACTURE/PRODUCTION AS A 100% EO FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELIGIBILITY OF CLAIM OF UNDER S.10B IS FY 2001-0 2 RELEVANT TO AY 2002- 03. 9. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN PERSPECTIVE AND HAS COME TO RIGHTFUL CONCLUSION ON FACTS. THE REVENUE COULD NOT BRING ANY POSITIVE EVIDENCE OTHER THAN THE CERTIFICATE FROM T HE ACCOUNTANT TO SHOW THAT ACTUAL COMMENCEMENT OF MANUFACTURE/PRODUCTION TOOK PLACE IN FY 2000-01 RELEVANT TO AY 2001-02 INDEED. ON THE OTHE R HAND, THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 40 /RJT /2015 ITO VS. M/S.ROYAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 15 - HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD OVERWHELMING EVIDENCES OF FA CTUAL NATURE TO SUPPORT ITS CASE THAT THE MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION ARTICLES OR THINGS AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER S.10B OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN FY 2000-01 RELEVANT TO AY 20001-02. THE COMMENCEME NT OF MANUFACTURE/PRODUCTION IN 2002-03 IS SUPPORTABLE BY PLETHORA OF EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF RETURN OF INCOME, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ELECTRICITY BILL, CHANGE OF LOCATION PLOT FOR MANUFACTURE, CERT IFICATE FROM SALE TAX AUTHORITIES AVAILABILITY OF PLANT AND MACHINERY ETC . THESE EVIDENCES IN TOTALITY LEAVES US IN NO DOUBT THAT YEAR OF COMMENC EMENT NOTED BY THE ACCOUNTANT IN ITS CERTIFICATE WAS INADVERTENT MISTA KE INCONSISTENT WITH THE UNDERLYING FACTS, FOR WHICH RELIEF CLAIMED UNDER S. 10B OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED. MERE AUTHORIZATION TO ENABLE THE ASSES SEE TO IMPORT MATERIAL OR EXPORT PRODUCE IN THE EARLIER DATE WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO TANTAMOUNT TO COMMENCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTUR E/PRODUCTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY DISCHARGED ONUS WHICH LAY UPON IT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO FAULT WITH THE CONCLU SION DERIVED BY THE CIT(A) AND REFUSE TO INTERFERE THEREWITH. ITA NO. 40 /RJT /2015 ITO VS. M/S.ROYAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 16 - 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11/09/2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ($) ( ) %! ! ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD ; DATED 11/09/2017 ..0,.%0../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *, / THE APPELLANT 2. -*, / THE RESPONDENT. 3. #8# 2 92 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 92 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-JAMNAGAR 5. ;<=%2%0 , , /DR,ITAT,RAJKOT 6. =H1 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, -;2%2 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) %&, / ITAT, RAJKOT 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 4.9.17 (DICTATION-PAD 24- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 4.9.17 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 11.9.17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 11.9.17 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER