ITO, New Delhi V. M/s Chandarmauli Tradex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5499/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3025 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY K SICHCHAL
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 131; 68; 6

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 5499 /DEL./201 0 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2007 - 08 PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B BENCH NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMB E R & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5 499 / DEL./201 0 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 7 - 0 8 ITO WARD 3(3) NEW DELHI VS. CHANDAMAULITRADEX PVT. L T D. B - 2, 2 ND FLOOR, LAJPAT NAGAR, NEW DELHI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) (PAN: A A C C C 8 431G ) REVENUE BY: SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI VIJAY K. SICHCHAL, CA DATE OF HEARING 2 2 / 0 5 /201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 2 / 0 5 /201 7 ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH E AFORESAID APPEAL HA S BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2 . 9 .201 0 , PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A PPEALS ) - VI , NEW DELHI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 143(3) FOR THE A.Y. 200 7 - 0 8 . IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 5,52,65,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 IGNORING THE FACT THAT EVEN IF PAPER IDENTIFY OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED, YET FOR PAGE 2 OF 10 THE PURPOSE OF ACCEPTING THE GENUINENESS OF FUNDS U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, THE PHYSICAL IDENTITY OF THE SHARE APPLICATION HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED AND IN THE PRESENT CASE THE SAME HAS NOT HAPPENED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE RECENT DECISIONS OF HON BLE TRIBUNAL IN SEVERAL CASES NAMELY OMEGA BIOTECH LTD. IN ITA NO. 2850/DEL/2009, OPTIBELT PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 1967/DEL/ 2009; ARYAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 2986/DEL/2009 BEAUTEX IN ITA NO. 217/DEL/2008. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF AS CULLED OUT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CONSULTANCY AND IS ALSO A COMMIS SION AGENT . D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 3,52,65,000/ - FROM THE SIX ENTITIES , THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - SR. N O . ENTITY NAME RUPEES 1 M/S. CGG GLOBAL TRADING CO. LTD. 1,64,50,000/ - 2 M/S. SHENTRACON FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 18,50,000/ - 3 M/S. LOCUS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 35,00,000/ - 4 M/S. ROLEX EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 50,000/ - 5 M/S. VIMSAI TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD. 34,50,000/ - 6 M/S. GAMMA AVIONICS DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD. 99,65,000/ - AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , HE HAS CALLED FOR THE INFORMATION U/S 13 3( 6 ) FROM THE SAID COMPANIES AND ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER S OR THE P ERSON S CONTROLLING THE SE COMPAN IES . BEFORE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE S CASE HAS BEEN THAT THERE WAS NO ALLOTMENT OF SHARES IN PAGE 3 OF 10 THE F.Y. 2006 - 07 , ALBEIT SUBSTANTIAL MONEY HAS BEEN REFUNDED BACK DURING THE F.Y. 2008 - 09 AND THE DETAILS OF REFUNDED AMOUNT AN D BALANCE AMOUNT LEFT WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED AT PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . APART FROM THAT , ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THESE COMPANIES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AL ONG WITH THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM WHERE THE REFUNDED AMOUNT WAS MADE . HOWEVER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSISTED UPON PRODUCING THE PERSONS BEFORE HIM AND HE ALSO ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 131 TO FIVE ENTITIES NAMELY; - M/S. CGG GLOBAL TRADING CO. LTD . M/S. LOCUS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. M/S. ROLEX EXPORTS PVT. LTD. M/S. VIMSAI TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD. M/S. GAMMA AVIONICS DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD. HE ALSO DEPUTED ITI TO MAKE ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF TWO COMPANIES, HOWEVER HE HAD REPORTED THAT NO SUCH C OMPANY EXISTED ON THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. BASED ON THESE INFORMATION, AND ALSO THE FACT THAT SOME OF NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) W ERE NOT RESPONDED BY THESE PARTIES, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION OF MONEY OF RS. 3,5 2 ,65,000/ - U/S 68. 3. BEFORE US LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT , ALREADY A COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM SHARE APPLICANTS ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT INVESTED, COPY OF T HEIR PAN , BANK STATEMENTS ANDCOPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME WAS PAGE 4 OF 10 F ILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . IN FACT IN TWO CASES, THE PARTIES HAVE FILED THEIR CONFIRMATIONS ALONG WITH THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS DIRECTLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN C OMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S 133(6) . REGARDING OTHER COMPANIES , THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NOTICES WHICH WERE SENT BY THE AO WERE ON WR ONG ADDRESSES AND THIS FACT WAS DULY INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO DID NOT ISSUE FURTHER NOTICE ON THE CORRECT ADDRE SS ES . FURTHER, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNIT YAFTER THE REPORT OF ITI , AND ALL THE ENQUIRY WAS DONE WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTION AND HAS DELETED THE SAID ADDITION AFTER MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: - 1.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF ID AR AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLA NT HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PERSON WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE TRANSACTIONS. HE HAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED TO MAKE ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF M/S. VIMASAI TRADING PVT. LTD. AND M/S. CGG GLOBAL TRADING PV T LTD AND AS PER THE INSPECTOR S REPORT NO SUCH COMPANY EXISTED ON THE GIVEN ADDRESS. HOWEVER, NO WHERE IT IS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT RESULTS OF THESE ENQUIRIES WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN THE APPELLANT H AS NOT BEEN PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE RESULTS OF ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED U THE BACK OF ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DRAWING ANY ADVERSE CONCLUSION. MOREOVER, THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE RELATES TO THE SHARE CAPITAL MONEY RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY VARIOUS DECISIONS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REQUISITE DETAILS E.G. PAN CONFIRMATION ETC. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE INITIAL ONUS IS DISCHARG ED. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE REQUISITE INFORMATION/ DETAILS REGARDING SHARE CAPITAL DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. NO FURTHER EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT ON PAGE 5 OF 10 RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY ME APPLICANT ARE FALSE OR THE E NTRIES APPEARING IN THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS WERE RESULTING FROM THE ASSESSEE S OWN FUND AND WERE THUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PERSONS, FT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GENUINE. IN TH E LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND VARIOUS PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 3,52,65,000/ - U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SAME IS D IRECTED TO BE DELETED. 5 . BEFORE US THE LD. DR, SUBMITTED THAT WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE HIS ENQUIRY AND FOUND THAT EITHER THESE PARTIES HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICES ISSUED OR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PARTIES , THE N THE ONUS LIED HEAVILY UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTION OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS GENUINE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. JAN SAMPARK ADVERTISING AND MARKETING PV T. LTD J UDGMENT ORDER DATED 11.3.2015 . THUS , HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE IS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT NONE OF THE PARTIES W ERE PRODUCED OR COULD BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE GENUINE AND NOT SHELL COMPANIES. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT , THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS PRIMA - FACIE ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND THE SHARE AP PLICANT S . HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE SIX ENTITIES WE RE PRIVATE LIMI TED COMPANIES WHO HAVE GIVEN THEIR LETTER OF CONFIRMATIONS , THEIR BANK STATEMENTS, PAN AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PAGE 6 OF 10 IT RETURN . THESE DOCUMENT ITSELF GOES TO PROVE THE SOURCE AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, DID NOT CONFRONT TO THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FACT THAT EITHER THE NOTICES COULD NOT BE SERVED OR CONFRONTED WITH THE REPORT O F THE ITI THAT THESE COM PANIES WE RE NOT AVAILABLE ON THE GIVEN ADDRESS ES . THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER LATER ON WHICH HE DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY. APART FROM THAT, IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF RECORD THAT MAJORITY OF THE SHARE APPLICA TION MONEY HAS BEEN REFUNDED BACK IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND FOR BALANCE AMOUNT SHARES HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED . ALL THE PRIMARY REQUIREMENTS FOR FURNISHING OF THE EVIDENCES AS REQUIRED FROM THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDIT U/S 68 HAS BEEN DISCHARGED. THEREFORE , THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THE SAME SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RECE I VED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM SIX ENTITIES FOR SUMS AGGREGATING TO RS. 3,52,65,000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER TO CULL OUT THAT THE TRANSACTION OF SHARE APPLICATION IS NOT GENUINE HAS NOTED C ERTAIN FACT THAT , FIRSTLY, INFORMATION U/S 133(6) WAS SOUGHT FROM ALL THE ABOVE COMPANIES , HOWEVER NO CONFIRMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM TWO COMPANIES; SECONDLY, HE HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER OR THE PERSON S CONTROLLING THE SE COMPANIES IN CASE OF 3 COMPANIES TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, H OWEVER NON E FROM THESE COMPANIES WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM; AND LASTLY, IN CASE OF TWO COMPANIES HE DEPUTED ITI WHO REPORTED THAT THESE TWO COMPANIES DO NOT EXIST ON PAGE 7 OF 10 THE GIVEN ADDRESS ES . ON THE OTHER HAND THE ASSESSEE S CASE, BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS BEEN THAT A LL THE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN FILED , VIZ ., CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM SHARE HOLDERS; DETAILS OF AMOUNT INVESTED BY THEM; A COPY OF THEIR BANK STATEMENTS; COPY OF PAN; AND COPY OF THEIR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME. IT HAD BEEN FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AO GOT THE ENQUIRIES DONE ON THE WRONG ADDRESSES AS THE ADDRESSES WERE CHANGED. THE LD. CIT (A) IN LIGHT OF THESE ASSERTIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS AND OBSERVED THAT AO HAS NOT REBUTTED THESE EVIDENCES. 7. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ENTIRE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE PARTIES BEFORE US AND ALSO ON PERUSAL OF MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE FILED CERTAIN INFORMATION AND DETAILS TO PRIMA FACIE PROVE THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CREDIT APPEARING IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WAS IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM SIX COMPANIES , H OWEVER WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CARRIED OUT HIS OWN SET OF ENQUIRIES AND FOUND THAT SOME OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE EITHER NOT CONFIRMED INDEPENDENTLY OR THEY WERE NOT FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES OR THEY HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) , T HEN IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE ONUS SHIFTS BACK TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONTROVERT THAT OUTCOME OF SUCH ENQUIRY WAS ERRONEOUS . THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE THAT THAT THESE ARE NOT SHELL COMPANIES, EXISTING ONLY IN PAPERS. MORE SO, ON THE PERUSAL OF THE INCOME TAX R ETURNS OF ALL THE COMPANIES, IT IS SEEN THAT IN ALL THE CASES, RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED SHOWING NIL INCOME AND WHAT HAS BEEN THEIR SOURCE OF INCOME OR SOURCE OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS IS ALSO NOT DISCERNIBLE. WHEN A DOUBT HAS BEEN WELL FOUNDED BY T HE AO IN HIS PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY, PAGE 8 OF 10 THEN ASSESSEE HAS TO DISPEL THAT DOUBT BY PROVING THAT THE TRANSACTION S WERE GENUINE. IF BEFORE THE LD . CIT (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ITI WAS NOT SENT ON THE CORRECT ADDRESS OR THERE HAS BEEN SOME CHANGE OF ADDRESS LATER ON, THE N IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE LD . CIT (APPEALS) TO HIMSELF GOT THE ENQUIRY DONE THROUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR SHOULD HAVE ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE REMAND REPORT TO EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE MADE BEFORE THE L D . CIT (APPEALS) OR SHOULD HAVE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE CREDITORS . NONE OF SUCH EXERCISE HAS BEEN DONE BY LD. CIT (A) WHICH HE IS REQUIRED TO DO SO UNDER LAW AS A FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAVING CO - TERMINUS POWER WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. E VEN THE CON FIRMATIONS LETTERS WHICH HA VE BEEN GIVEN ALONG WITH THE OTHER DETAILS HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED PROPERLY BY THE LD . CIT (APPEALS) OR EVEN AS A MATTER OF FACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , ESPECIALLY WHEN DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY RECEIVED THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND NONE OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE ALLOTTED SHARES IN THIS YEAR AND IT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN PROPERLY SCRUTINIZED AS TO H OW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN REFUNDED BACK IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND TO WHOM SHARES HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED AND WHEN . A LL THESE FACTS NEEDS TO THOROUGHLY SCRUTIN IZED AND EXAMINED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES . THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) BEFORE GRANTING RELIE F SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST EXAMINED HIMSELF/HERSELF OR SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSE SSING OFFICER . THUS, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ENTIRE MATTER OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL EXAMINE THE EVIDENCES AND ALSO CARRY OU T PROPER ENQUIRY ON THE CORRECT ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF ALL THE SIX COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE SHALL COOPERATE IN PROVIDING ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS AS AND PAGE 9 OF 10 WHEN REQUIRE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS , WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND REMA ND BACK THE ENTIRE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AFTER GIVING DUE AND PROPER OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 2 . 0 5 .201 7. S D / - S D / - ( PRASHANT MAHARSHI ) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2 2 . 0 5 .2017 NARENDER COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT (APPEALS) 5) DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON 2 2 .0 5 .2017 PAGE 10 OF 10 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 2 2 .0 5 .2017 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 2 2 . 5 .2017 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 2 . 5 .2017 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.