M/s. Pankaj Oil Mill, JAMNAGAR V. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.2, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 463/RJT/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2344 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH RANPURA CA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [ CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD ] , , ! BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NOS.463, 464 AND 465/RJT/2015 ( / ASST.YEARS : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY ) 1-3.M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL 1 ST FLOOR, ASHA CHAMBERS GRAIN MARKET, JAMNAGAR / VS. 1-3.THE DY.CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 RAJKOT & ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAEFP 1280 B ( &( / APPELLANT ) .. ( )&( / RESPONDENT ) &( * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARISH RANPURA, CA (AR) )&( + * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI YOGESH PANDEY, CIT-DR ,-. + / DATE OF HEARING 10/12/2015 /0 + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22/01/2016 / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X(APPEALS)-11, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 01/07/2015, 28/07/2015 & 02/07/2015 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 201 0-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE COMMON ISSUES AND FAC TS ARE INVOLVED IN ALL ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 2 - THESE APPEALS, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BE ING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONV ENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE ITA NO.463/RJT/2015 FOR A Y 2010-11. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,90,400/- U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 2.1. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A S EARCH ACTION U/S.132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM ON 25/08/2011. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, VARIOUS MATERIALS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. PROCEEDINGS U/S.153A OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED BY I SSUING NOTICE DATED 12/03/2013 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE- FIRM. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE-FIRM FI LED THE RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,23,130/- ON 12/08/2013 . THEREAFTER, ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 24/02/2014, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE ADDITION OF RS.5,90,400/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 3 - 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE S UBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE IN THE WRITTEN SYNOPSIS. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.CIT-DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL WAS RELATED TO ADDIT ION U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE AO TO FURNISH LETTER OF CONFIRMATION FROM THE FRESH CASH CREDITOR FOR THE DEPOSIT RECEIVED DURING THIS YEAR. THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY CONFIRMATION, THEREFORE, THE AO MADE AD DITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE ONUS TO FULFILL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED U/S.68 OF THE I.T.ACT. IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT HE RECEIVED LOAN OF RS.590,400/LONG BACK IN 2004-05 THROUGH ACC OUNT PAYEE CHEQUE WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY SETTLED BY SELLING AN O PEN PLOT OF LAND IN RAJKOT TO SHRI P.S. RAIYANI, THEREFORE, THE FIND ING OF THE AO WAS NOT CORRECT. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, FINDING OF THE AO AND SUBMIS SION OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE ORDER REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH CONFIRMAT ION OF LOAN IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NO TICE. THE APPELLANT FURNISHED HIS EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AO T HAT HE HAD FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE SAID DEPOSIT OR. HOWEVER, IT ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 4 - WAS FOUND BY THE AO THAT NO SUCH CONFIRMATION LETTE R WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO. THE EXPLANATION, THE APPELLANT FILED IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, WAS ALTOGETHER NEW AS THESE FACTS WERE NEVER FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. THE APPELLANT DID NOT GIVE ANY EXPLANATION FOR SUCH CHANGE IN THE FACTS IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. HE DID NOT FURNIS H A COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF BANK STATEMENT TO ESTABLISH VER ACITY OF HIS EXPLANATION. MERE FURNISHING A COPY OF LEDGE IN HI S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A RELIABLE EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, TO THE BEST OF MY UNDE RSTANDING, APPEARS TO BE A CASE TO MAKE BELIEVE A STORY WHICH SERIOUSLY SUFFERS THE ELEMENT OF TRUTH OF THE FACTS. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4.1. WE ARE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) AS FROM THE ORDER IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELEVANT MATERIAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), HOWEVER, LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT CO NSIDERING THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE PROCEEDED TO DISM ISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL. THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SOUGHT REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE HIM. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT THE FUND HAS BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST THE SALE OF PLOT AND IS APPEARING IN BOOKS FROM AY 2005-06. THE ASS ESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD PAN AND ASSESSMENT DETAILS OF SHRI P.S.RAIYANI FOR THE AY 2010-11. THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE SUSTAIN ED THE ADDITION WITHOUT CONDUCTING PROPER VERIFICATION. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 5 - AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THUS, GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. AS A RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 201 0-11 IS ALLOWED. 5. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE ITA NO.464/RJT/2015 FOR AY 2 011-12, WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE:- 1.0. THE GROUND OF APPEAL MENTIONED HEREUNDER ARE W ITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 2.0 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-AX (APPEALS) -11, AHMEDABAD [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A) ER RED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.16,37,0 00/- U/S.68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEX PLAINED CASH CREDIT RECEIVED FROM SHRI PS. RAIYANI AND NIRMALA D . PATEL. THE ADDITION RETAINED IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED ON FACT AS ALSO IN LAW AND MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3.0 THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN RETAINING ADDITION OF RS.10,34,310/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UN EXPLAINED SALE OF GROUNDNUT OIL. THE ADDITION RETAINED IS TOTALL Y UNJUSTIFIED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW AND MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 4.0 THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN RETAINING ADDITION OF RS.10,96,732/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UN EXPLAINED PURCHASE OF GROUNDNUT SEEDS. THE ADDITION RETAINED IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW AND MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 5.0 YOUR HONOURS APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AM END, ALTER, OR WITHDRAW ANY OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEF ORE THE HEARING APPEAL. ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 6 - 5.1. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SE ARCH ACTION U/S.132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM ON 25/08/2011. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, VARIOUS MATERIALS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. PROCEEDINGS U/S.153A OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED BY I SSUING NOTICE DATED 12/03/2013 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE- FIRM. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE-FIRM FI LED THE RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,01,370/- ON 12/08/2013 . THEREAFTER, ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 24/02/2014, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS, SUCH AS, UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF RS.16,37,000/-, UNEXPLAINED SALE OF GROUNDNUT OIL O F RS.10,34,310/- AND UNEXPLAINED PURCHASE OF GROUNDNUT SEED OF RS.10,96, 732/-. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, PREFERR ED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. GROUND NO.1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS GENERAL IN N ATURE WHICH REQUIRES NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 7. GROUND NO.2 ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRM ING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,37,000/- U/S.68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF A LLEGED UNEXPLAINED ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 7 - CASH CREDIT RECEIVED FROM SHRI P.S. RAIYANI OF RS.1 3,31,000/- AND SMT.NIRMALA D.PATEL OF RS.3,06,000/-. 7.1. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE IN THE SYNOPSIS. HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE FY 2005-06, FIRM TRANSFERRED GIDC PLOT FOR RS.13,31,000/- TO SHRI P. S.RIYANI. HOWEVER, ACCOUNTING ENTRY OF SUCH TRANSFER WAS REMAINED TO B E ENTERED IN THE BOOKS, THEREFORE, IN CURRENT YEAR, JOURNAL ENTRY W AS PASSED IN BOOKS SHOWING RS.13,31,000/- AS RECEIVABLE (DEBIT) FROM S HRI P.S.RAIYANI WITH CORRESPONDING CREDIT TO THE PLOT OF LAND ACCOUNT. THUS, IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO FUNDS WERE RECEIVED BY THE APPELL ANT-FIRM FROM SHRI P.S.RAIYANI. HE SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE AO, THE CREDIT-ENTRY WAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED, BUT THE AO ERRONEOUSLY HE LD THAT THE CREDIT ENTRY WAS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED. HE SUBMITTED THA T THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND IN A MECHANICAL MANNER, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF SHRI P.S.RAIYANI AND PLOT OF LAND [HE DREW OUR ATTE NTION TOWARDS PAGE NOS.8 & 9 OF THE PAPER-BOOK] FURNISHED BEFORE THE L D.CIT(A), IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RECEIVED THE SUM OF RS.1 3,31,000/- IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IT WAS JUST JOURNAL ENTRY I N THE BOOKS. HE SUBMITTED THAT RIGHT FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, IT WAS STATED THAT THE PLOT OF LAND WAS SOLD IN FY 2005-06 FOR THE SAL E CONSIDERATION OF RS.13,31,000/- TO SHRI P.S.RAIYANI AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO CASE OF ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 8 - CHANGING THE STAND IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. THE AO A LSO HAS ACCEPTED THE SALE WAS MADE IN AY 2006-07 AND SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.13,31,000/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE UNDISPUTABLE FACTS , THE ADDITION WAS MADE AND THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. IN RES PECT OF ADDITION OF RS.3,06,000/-, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED RS.3 LACS FROM SMT.NIRMALA D.PATEL ON TEMPORARY BASIS AND REPAID WITHIN THE PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS ALONG WI TH INTEREST OF RS.6,000/-. THE AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE CASH CREDIT AND THE STAND OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRONEOUSLY NOT CONSIDERED T HE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THEM. HE SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A ) ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS RELATED TO SMT.NIRMALA D.PATEL WERE DULY FU RNISHED AND THE LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAME PROCEEDED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION. 7.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT-DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE O UGHT TO HAVE SUPPORTED ITS CLAIM, HOWEVER ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 9 - THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN PARA-6 OF HI S ORDER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6. THE FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL WAS RELATED TO ADD ITION U/S.68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE A.O. MENTIONED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASS ESSEE RECEIVED UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.16,37,000/- FROM TWO PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE DEPOSITORS, HO WEVER, HE DID NOT FURNISH CONFIRMATIONS OF THE CASH CREDITORS. IN RES PONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED IN HIS LETTER THAT CON FIRMATION WAS ENCLOSED FROM SHRI P.S. RAIYANI, HOWEVER, THE AO. FOUND THAT NO SUCH CONFIRMATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILAR LY, CONFIRMATION FROM SMT.NIRMALA D. PATEL WAS FURNISHED BUT IT WAS NOT HAVING RELEVANT DETAILS SUCH AS PAN, COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE CREDIT OR ETC. THEREFORE, THE A.O. HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE IDE NTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTIONS AS REQUIRED U/S. 68 OF THE IT. ACT. IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT HE TRANSFERRED HIS LEASE RIGHTS IN AN INDUSTRIAL PLOT IN GIDC TO S HRI P.S. RAIYANI IN THE F.Y. 2005-06 FOR SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.13,31,000 /-, HOWEVER, THE CORRESPONDING ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS COUL D NOT BE ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR AND WHEN IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE APPELLANT, THE ENTRY TO THIS EFFECT WAS PASSED IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY RECEIVED SUM OF RS.5,90,40 0/- IN THE F.Y. 2004-05 AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.7,40,600/- WAS SHO WN AS RECEIVABLE FROM SHRI P.S. RAIYANI. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO QUE STION OF ANY UNSECURED LOAN/CASH CREDIT FROM SHRI P.S. RAIYANI. AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE CASE RECORDS, CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS ENTRY OF CASH CREDITS AS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM SHRI P.S. RAIYANI DURING THIS PERIOD AND THAT IN HIS REPLY TO SHOW CA USE NOTICE OF THE AO CONFIRMATION OF SHRI P.S. RAIYANI WAS ENCLOSED. BOT H THESE FACTS ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 10 - ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN PROPER OPPO RTUNITY TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDITS FROM SHRI P.S. RAIY ANI. FURTHER CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS TRANSFER OF RIGHTS IN A PLOT OF LAND IN GIDC TO P.S. RAIYANI IN 2005-06, THAT HE RE CEIVED PART CONSIDERATION FROM SHRI P.S. RAIYANI IN THE FINANCI AL YEAR 2004-05, THAT PART OF THE CONSIDERATION WAS STILL OUTSTANDING EVE N AFTER A PERIOD OF ALMOST 7 TO 8 YEARS AND THAT THE ENTRY TO THAT EFFE CT WERE NOT MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC. APPEARS TO BE AN AFTERTHOUGH T AND A COOKED STORY TO MAKE BELIEVE THE FACTS WHICH NEVER EXISTED. AS A MATTER OF FACT THIS CONTENTION WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE A.O. IT WAS AD EQUATELY CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS EXPLANATION AND CHANGING HIS STANDING IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS . THEREFORE, AFTER HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND IN TOTALITY THE OVER ALL SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ACTION OF THE A.O., IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED. REGARDING LOAN FROM SMT. NIRMALA D. PATEL, THE APPE LLANT SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS A TEMPORARY LOAN WHICH WAS REPAID WITHI N A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS ALONG WITH INTEREST. IT WAS NOTICED FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH SUCH EXPLANATION DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO. AS STATED EARLIER, THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH PROPER CONFIRMATION OF LOAN FROM SMT. NIRMA LA D. PATEL DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO PROVE HER IDENTITY AND CR EDITWORTHINESS AS A CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THUS, THE CONDITIONS REQUIRE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT WERE NOT SATISFIED BY TH E APPELLANT BEFORE THE AO OR EVEN DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, TH E GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8.1. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT VERIFYING T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE PROCEEDED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION. THE LD .CIT(A) HAS NOT EVEN OBTAINED REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO WITH REGARD TO C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PLOT OF LAND WAS SOLD TO SHRI P.S. RAIYANI IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 11 - 2004-05 AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS SHOWN TO BE RECEIVABLE. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 9. GROUND NOS.3 & 4 ARE INTER-CONNECTED AND, THEREF ORE THE SAME ARE DECIDED TOGETHER. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.10,34,310/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED SALE OF GROUNDNUT OI L AND GROUND NO.4 IS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.10,96,732/- ON ACCOUNT OF AL LEGED UNEXPLAINED PURCHASE OF GROUNDNUT SEEDS. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE IN THE WRITTEN SYNOPSI S. HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI PANKAJ V.PATEL, LOOSE-PAPERS WERE SEIZED INDICATING PURCHASE OF GRO UND-NUT SEEDS FOR RS.10,96,732/- AND SALE OF GROUND NUT OIL OF RS.10, 34,310/-. IN ASSESSMENT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI PANKAJ V.PA TEL HAD CARRIED OUT SUCH TRANSACTIONS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN OFFERED BY HIM BEFORE THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE AO REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS AND ADDED THE SUM OF RS.10,34,310/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNCOU NTED SALES AND HE FURTHER ADDED THE SUM OF RS.10,96,732/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE. THE LD.CIT(A)S FINDING WAS THAT THE AO C ATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT THESE TRANS ACTIONS DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. THERE WAS NO FINDING I N THE ORDER OF HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF SHRI PANKAJ V. PATEL REGARDING THE ABOVEMENTIONED TRANSACTIONS. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE AND S ALE AS PER THE SEIZED- ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 12 - PAPERS HAVE BEEN OWNED-UP BY SHRI PANKAJ V.PATEL BE FORE THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND PROFIT OF RS.2,40,000/- H AS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NO.48 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. THE LD.CIT (CENTRAL) IN HIS REPORT UNDER RULE-9 ALLEGED THAT THE SAID PAPERS/TRANSACTIONS ARE OF APPELLANT (PAGE NO.50 OF THE PAPER-BOOK). THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE FINAL ORDER PASSED U/S.245D(4) OF THE ACT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE LD.CIT(CENTRAL)S CONTENTION AND ACC EPTED THE DISCLOSURE OF SHRI PANKAJ V.PATEL IN RESPECT OF SUCH PAPERS/TR ANSACTIONS. THUS, ADDITION IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED AND MAY KINDLY BE D ELETED. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE ( GROUND NO.2 & 3) IN PARAS-7 & 8 OF HIS ORDER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 7. THE FIFTH GROUND OF APPEAL WAS RELATED TO ADDI TION OF RS.10,34,310/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED SALE OF GROUND NU T OIL. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS MENTIONED IN PAGE N O.28 OF ANNEXURE A- 1 OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL REPRESENTED TRANSACTIONS O F SALE OF OIL WHICH WAS NOT REFLECTED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THEREFO RE, REASONABLE PROFIT ON THE TRANSACTION WAS OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INC OME IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2012-13. THE A.O. C ATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT THESE TRANS ACTIONS DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT IT WAS A CASE OF UNACCOUNTED SALE OF GROUND NUT OIL AND ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE ADDITION OF THESE TRANSACTIONS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ADMITT EDLY, THE APPELLANT DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR THESE TRANSACTIONS IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HIS EXPLANATION THAT A REASONABLE PROFIT EARNED FROM TH ESE TRANSACTIONS WAS ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 13 - DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR ESTABLISHED THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN DOING BUSINESS OUT OF BOOKS ALSO . IN VIEW OF THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS CONFIRMED. 8. THE SIXTH GROUND OF APPEAL WAS RELATED TO ADDITION OF RS.10,96,732/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED PU RCHASE OF GROUND NUT SEEDS. THE A.O. GAVE A FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THA T, ON VERIFICATION OF THE TRANSACTIONS MENTIONED IN PAGE 27 OF ANNEXURE A -5 OF SEIZED MATERIAL, IT WAS GATHERED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PU RCHASE OF GROUND NUT SEEDS HAVING PARTICULARS OF QUANTITY, WEIGHT AND NA ME OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE PURCHASES WERE MADE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO THE A.O. EXCEPT EXPLAINING THAT THE GRO UND NUT SEEDS WERE USED FOR EXTRACTING GROUND NUT OIL AND THAT PART OF THE OIL WAS TAKEN FOR HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION AND THE BALANCE QUANTITY OF T HE OIL WAS SOLD TO HIS FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TH AT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE OIL WERE OF RS.10,34,310/-. THEREFORE, THE AO M ADE ADDITION BY TREATING THESE TRANSACTIONS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT FURNISHED T HE SAME SUBMISSION AS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT SHRI PANKAJ V. PATEL OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.10,60,000/-ON ADHOC BASIS BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION TO COVER ANY DISCREPANCY, ERROR OR OMISSION. THEREFORE, UNACCOUNTED INCOME OR PROFIT EARNED BY H IM FROM THE ACTIVITY OF GROUND NUT OIL WAS ALREADY OFFERED BEFO RE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND HENCE, THE ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETE D. HE ENCLOSED COPY OF THE ORDER U/S. 245D(4) DATED 19.03.2015 OF THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE ORDER WAS GONE THROUGH A ND IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED INCOME ON ACCOUN T OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS OF RS.5.83 CRORES AND UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT S OF RS. 6.30 CRORES AND SOME OTHER SIMILAR ISSUES. THERE WAS NO FINDING IN THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION REGARDING THE ABOVEME NTIONED TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BASED ON FACTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 14 - 10.1. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE CONTENT IONS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT DURING THE SETTLEMENT PRO CEEDINGS THE IMPUGNED ADDITION(S) WERE MENTIONED BY THE LD.DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE (CIT) AS SHRI PANKAJ V. PATEL HAD OFFERED SUCH TRANSACTIO NS DURING THE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIREC T THE AO TO DELETE ADDITION AS WE FIND MERIT INTO THE CONTENTION THAT SAME AMOUNT CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAX TWICE. THUS, GROUND NOS.3 & 4 AR E ALLOWED. 11. GROUND NO.5 IS GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH REQUIRE NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. AS A RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2011-12 IS ALLOWED. 12. LASTLY, WE TAKE UP ITA NO.465/RJT/2015 FOR AY 2 012-13 AND THE SOLITARY GROUND (I.E. GROUND NO.2) RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,64,695/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED SALE. GROUND NOS.1 & 3 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH REQUIRE NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 12.1. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH ACTION U/S.132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM ON 25/08/2011. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, VARIOUS MATERIALS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE ACT, PROCEEDING S U/S.153A OF THE ACT ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 15 - WERE INITIATED FOR AYS 2006-07 TO 2011-12. IN RES PONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE-FIRM FILED THE RE TURN OF INCOME SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.28,910/- ON 23/09/2013. THEREAF TER, ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 24/02 /2014, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE ADDITION OF RS .7,64,695/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.C IT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISS ED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 13. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE IN THE WRITTEN SYNOPSIS. HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E TRANSACTIONS IN THE SEIZED LOOSE-PAPERS ARE NOT ISOLATED BUT CONNECTED WITH EACH OTHER. THIS FACT IS EVIDENCED FROM THE CONTENT OF SEIZED DOCUME NTS REPRODUCED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THEREFORE, AMOUNT OF RS.4,14 ,695/- AS PER SEIZED PAPER NO.17 IS INCLUSIVE OF AMOUNT OF RS.3,50,000/- IN SEIZED PAPER NO.15. HE SUBMITTED THAT THEREFORE THE AO ERRED IN FACTS IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF BOTH THE AMOUNTS. FURTHER, IT WAS SU BMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT BEFORE THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THAT SHRI PANKAJ V.PATEL WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING/SPECULATION IN COMMODITIES AND SUCH TRANSAC TIONS WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF PANKAJ V.PATEL. IN THE SETTLEMENT ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 16 - PETITION IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT, INSTANCES OF SUCH U NACCOUNTED RECEIPTS/PAYMENTS WERE FOUND IN THE DOCUMENTS SEIZE D. (PARA 5.1 OF THE SETTLEMENT APPLICATION FILED). THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.245D(4) OF THE ACT ACCEPTED THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY SHRI PAN KAJ V.PATEL AS FULL AND TRUE. THEREFORE, IMPUGNED ADDITIONS MADE IN TO TAL DISREGARDS TO THE FACTS ON RECORD IS UNJUSTIFIED AND DESERVES TO BE D ELETED. 13.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.CIT-DR SUPPORTED THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL WAS RELATED TO ADDI TION ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED PAPERS. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THERE WERE NOTINGS OF SOME TRANSACTIONS ON PAGE NO. 15 TO 17 O F ANNEXURE A-5 OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL. AFTER OBTAINING EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO MADE ADDITION WITH THE FINDING THAT THE NOTI NGS WERE RELATED TO SALE OF SOME COMMODITY TO VINAY TRADERS. THE PARTICULARS SUCH AS QUANTITY AND RATE ETC., WERE AL SO MENTIONED IN THESE LOOSE-PAPERS. THE AO HELD THAT THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE RELATED TO SPEC ULATION TRANSACTIONS OF SHRI PANKAJ PATEL IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY WERE ALSO NOT PROVED WITH EVIDENCE. SIMILARLY, THE ARGUM ENT OF THE ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 17 - ASSESSEE THAT INCOME EARNED FROM THESE TRANSACTIONS OFFERED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN THE CO RRECTNESS OF HIS SUBMISSIONS. IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLAN T REPEATED THE EXPLANATION WHICH HE FURNISHED IN THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS HE FURNISHED COPY OF ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FR OM PAGE NO.8 TO 24 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IT WAS GATHERED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NO T MENTION THESE TRANSACTIONS IN HIS SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE SE TTLEMENT COMMISSION. MOREOVER, THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SETT LEMENT COMMISSION ALSO DID NOT HAVE SUCH FINDINGS. IN VIEW OF SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 14.1. THE IDENTICAL ISSUE WE HAVE DECIDED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.464/RJT/2015 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 10.1. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE CONTEN TIONS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT DURI NG THE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS THE IMPUGNED ADDITION(S) WER E MENTIONED BY THE LD.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (CIT) AS SH RI PANKAJ V. PATEL HAD OFFERED SUCH TRANSACTIONS DURING THE SETT LEMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE ADDITION AS WE FIND MERIT INTO THE CONTENTION THAT SAME AMOUNT CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAX TWICE. THUS, GROUND NO S.3 & 4 ARE ALLOWED. 14.2. THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY CHANGE IN TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NOS. 463,464 & 465/RJT/2015 M/S.PANKAJ OIL MILL VS. DCIT AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY - 18 - 15. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 22 ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 22/ 01 /2016 ..,, -. ,../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &( / THE APPELLANT 2. )&( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 4 5 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 5 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-11, AHMEDABAD 5. 7-8 , , , /DR,ITAT, RAJKOT/AHMEDABAD 6. 8HI J. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, )7 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) & ' , / ITAT, RAJKOT 1. DATE OF DICTATION 15.1.16 (DICTATION-PAD 17-- P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..19.1.2016 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. 22.1.16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 22.1.16 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