Shri Hasmukhbhai Ambalal Patel, Anand V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-2, Anand

ITA 571/AHD/2005

• Counselvise Citation: 57120514 RSA 2005
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2005
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD , .'.#$%, '& ' ' BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT SL. NO(S). ITA NO(S) ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 571/AHD/2005 1996-97 SHRI HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL PROP.SHRIJI AGRO TRADERS KRISHNA ROAD, ANAND PAN: ABOPP8954H THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 ANAND/ ACIT ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND 2. 572/AHD/2005 1997-98 -DO- -DO- 3. 573/AHD/2005 1998-99 -DO- -DO- 4. 574/AHD/2005 1999-2000 -DO- -DO- 5. 671/AHD/2005 1996-97 REVENUE ASSESSEE 6. 672/AHD/2005 1997-98 REVENUE ASSESSEE 7. 673/AHD/2005 1998-99 REVENUE ASSESSEE 8. 674/AHD/2005 1999-2000 REVENUE ASSESSEE ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.G.PATEL, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI JAI RAJKUMAR, D.R. () * & / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 21/11/2011 ,$- * & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/12/2011 '. / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE EIGHT APPEALS ARE CROSS-APPEALS RESPECTIVE LY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARISING FROM A CONSOLIDATE D ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II, BARODA DATED 09/12/2004 AN D THE YEAR-WISE DISPOSAL ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 2 - [A] ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 (I) ASSESSEES APPEAL 2. GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER: THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II , BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY HOLDIN G THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.5 6,025/- IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK CONSIDER IN THE SAME AS NON- GENUINE. 2.1 FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDIN G ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 05/03/2003 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF PLANT PROTECTION AND EQUIPMENT AND AGRICULTURAL SPRAY PUMP. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE BANK A/C.NO.1036 WITH CHAROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CNSP), ANAND AND FOUND THAT FOLLOWING AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED ON VARIOUS DATES:- 1. MAY, 1995 RS.35,000/- 2. JULY, 1995 RS. 8,820/- 3. DECEMBER, 1995 RS.12,205/- TOTAL RS.56,025/- 2.2. A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BUT NO COMPLIAN CE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION, I T WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED ITS ONUS U/S.68 OF THE I.T.ACT THEREREFORE THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 3 - 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS FOUND THAT CERTAIN EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HENCE FORWARDED THE SAME TO ASSESSING OFFICER AND A REMAND REPORT WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER; RELEVANT EX TRACT IS AS FOLLOWS:- IT IS NOTICED THAT ON GOING THROUGH THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.8,820 ON 8.7.95 IN VEHICLE LOAN ACCOUNT WHICH WA S FOUND TO BE A TRANSFER ENTRY FROM ASSESSEES OWN SAVINGS BANK A CCOUNT WITH UNITED WESTERN BANK LTD. HOWEVER, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS.8,000 IN CASH JUST ONE DAY BEFORE THE DATE OF ISSUE OF CHEQUE I.E. ON 7.7.95. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE, HE HAD NO EXPLANATION FOR SUCH DEPOSITS. THEREFORE, DEPOSIT OF RS.8,000 REMAINED UNEXPLAINED . THERE IS ANOTHER ENTRY OF RS.35,000 WHICH IS FOUND TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER FROM SHREEJI AGRO TRADERS ACCOUNT NO.177 W ITH CNCB ANAND. SHREEJI AGRO TRADERS IS A PROPRIETARY CONCE RN OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN FROM THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF SHREEJI AGRO TRADERS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.35,000 WAS TRANSFERRE D ON 26.5.1995 TO A/C NO.1036 WITH THE SAME BANK VIZ-CHA ROTAR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE BY DEPO SITING CASH OF RS.35,000. FURTHER, TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES AND SALES, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH COPIES OF BILLS ETC DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T PRODUCED THESE DETAILS. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DETAILS PROD UCED FOR VERIFICATION THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASE AND SALES COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT IN THE SUB SEQUENT YEAR PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH TO THE PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY SHREEJI TRADERS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, ALL THE DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNT NO.103 6 AMOUNTING TO RS.56,025 ARE UNEXPLAINED AND THE AO HAS RIGHTLY D ISALLOWED THEM AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 4 - 4. ON ONE HAND, THE ASSESSEES PLEA BEFORE THE LEAR NED CIT(APPEALS) WAS THAT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT WAS FROM AGRICULTURA L INCOME. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REVENUE HAS CONTENDED THAT NO PROOF OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS FURNISHED. ON ACCOUNT OF SAID CONFLICT, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE REVENUE AS FOLLOWS:- 5.4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPE LLANT, ARGUMENTS PUTFORTH BY THE COUNSEL AND THE REPORT OF THE AO. THE FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ALSO CONSIDERED . IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION FOR WANT OF DETAILS AND NON- PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLANT HA S STATED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NON-COMPLIANCE AND NOW FRESH OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN AFFORDED AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THE AO HAS NOW VERIFIED THE DETAILS AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE EX PLANATION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE HIM DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT CASH DEPOSITED INTO THE B ANK REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND HENCE THE SOURCE OF SAID DEPOSITS R EMAINED UNPROVED. THE APPELLANT NOW SUBMITS THAT SOURCE OF DEPOSITS WERE FROM AGRICULTURAL EARNING FOR WHICH EVIDENCE HAS BE EN SUBMITTED. THE AO ON THE OTHER HAND IN HIS REPORT CATEGORICAL LY STATED THAT PURCHASE AND SALE BILLS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WER E NOT FURNISHED FOR VERIFICATION SO AS JUSTIFY THE SOURCE FOR CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF APPELLANTS CASE, I HOLD THAT ADDITION MADE IS JUST IFIED SINCE THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. THE SAME THEREFORE STANDS CONFIRMED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED BY THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD.AR OF THE ASSESS EE MR. M.G. PATEL. ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD .DR MR.JAI RAJKUMAR HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 5 - AS THE REMAND REPORT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO EXPLAIN THE RESPECTIVE THREE BANK ENTRIES B UT THAT EXPLANATION WAS NOT AT ALL CONVINCING DUE TO LACK OF SUPPORTING EVI DENCE. IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED DEPOSIT OF RS.35,000/- AND RS.8,820/- IT W AS ALLEGED THAT IT RELATED TO SOME VEHICLE LOAN BUT THERE WAS NO EVIDE NCE TO ACCEPT THE SAID CONTENTION. EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE THIRD DEPOSIT O F RS.12,205/- THOUGH THE SUBMISSION WAS THAT IT RELATED TO AGAINST SOME VEHI CLE LOAN BUT LIKEWISE THE SAME REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE ASSESSEE WA S GRANTED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BY BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND A R EMAND REPORT HAS ALSO BEEN CALLED FOR BUT NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE FROM T HE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. BE FORE US, THE ASSESSEE AHS CLAIMED THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ALSO THE S OURCE BUT THAT CLAIM ALSO REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED. WE HAVE ALSO NOTE D THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 21/09/2004 THE REVENUE HAS CATEGORICAL LY STATED THAT THE DEPOSIT OF RS.8,000/- WAS NOT RELATED WITH THE DEPO SIT OF RS.8,820/- BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT DATES. LIKEWISE, THE EXPL ANATION OF TRANSFER OF RS.35,000/- FROM THE ACCOUNT OF SHREEJI AGRO TRADER S WAS ALSO INCORRECT BECAUSE THAT ENTRY WAS NOT RELATED TO THE TRANSFER IN ASSESSEES ACCOUNT BUT IN SOME OTHER ACCOUNT. ON ALL COUNTS, THE ASSE SSEE HAS UTTERLY PAID TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT THEREFORE WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO AFFIRM THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ALSO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER:- 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY HOLDING THAT ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 6 - THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED INTERE ST OF RS.95,350/- HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN DIVERTED TO NON-INTERES T BEARING FUNDS. 6.1. ON PERUSAL OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, IT WAS NO TICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT INTEREST OF RS.95,350/- WAS DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WAS ALSO NOTIC ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE ADVANCES TO SIST ER-CONCERNS BUT NO INTEREST WAS RECEIVED. THE DETAILS OF THE INTEREST -FREE ADVANCES TO SISTER- CONCERNS WERE AS UNDER:- 1. M/S.KAIWAL AGRO TRADERS RS.5,57,233/- 2. SHREEJI FARMING AGENCY RS. 14,000/- 3. MARUTI AGRO EQUIPMENT RS.1,48,175/- 6.2. A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BUT NO SATISFAC TORY REPLY WAS FURNISHED. IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HAT THE ENTIRE FUNDS WERE GIVEN FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THOSE SISTER-CONCERNS WERE U NDER THE PROPRIETORSHIP OF THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. TH ERE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED INTEREST RATE AT 15% AND DISALL OWED RS.95,350/- WHICH WAS CONTESTED. 7. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARN ED CIT(APPEALS) WAS THAT THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT WAS FROM SISTER-CON CERNS AND THAT AMOUNT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SALES MADE IN EARLIER YEAR S. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE TOTAL INTEREST-FREE FUNDS AVAILA BLE TO THE ASSESSEE WAS ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 7 - AT RS.7,19,409/-, BUT THAT CLAIM WAS NOT SUBSTANTIA TED. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED THAT IT WAS NOT CLEAR THA T WHEN THE LOANS WERE TAKEN FROM THE FRIENDS AND HOW THOSE LOANS WERE UTI LIZED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEXUS OF ADVANCE OF NON-INTEREST BEA RING FUNDS OUT OF THE INTEREST-FREE AMOUNT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, T HE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS AFFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE. 8. FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE LD.AR MR.M.G.PATEL APPEARED AND CITED TWO DECISIONS; (I) D& H SECHERON ELETRODES PV T.LTD. VS. CIT 142 ITR 528 (M.P.) AND (II) CIT V/S. AMBALAL MILLS 147 ITR 771 (MAD.). THE RATIO LAID DOWN WAS THAT THE CONDITION PRECEDEN T TO ALLOW INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL IS THAT THE CAPITAL MUST HAVE BEEN BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS, THEN ONLY ALLOWABLE. FE W CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT NON-INTEREST BEARING FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE INTEREST-FREE ADVANCE WAS GIVEN TO THE SI STER-CONCERNS. IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. 221 CTR 4 35 (BOM) THE HONBLE COURT HAS SAID THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS IN P OSSESSION OF SUFFICIENT INTEREST-FREE FUNDS OF ITS OWN A PRESUMPTION IS THA T THE INVESTMENT TO SISTER-CONCERN COULD HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF THOSE IN TEREST-FREE FUNDS. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FOUND THAT THERE WERE INTEREST-F REE FUNDS GENERATED FROM THE BUSINESS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. OTHER WISE ALSO, IT HAD COME OUT OF THE FACTS THAT CERTAIN SALES WERE MADE TO TH OSE SISTER-CONCERNS AND THERE WAS SOME BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH THOSE SISTE R-CONCERNS. IN THE CASE OF S.A. BUILDERS 288 ITR PAGE 01 (SC), IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO ESTABLISH COMMERCIAL E XPEDIENCY, THEN THE ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 8 - DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS UNWARRANTED. DUE TO TH ESE REASONS, WE WANT TO RESTORE THIS GROUND BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO, SO THAT HE CAN EXAMINE AFRESH THE TOTAL AVAILABILITY OF NON-INTEREST BEARI NG FUNDS AND ALSO CAN ASCERTAIN THE FACT THAT WHETHER THERE WAS COMMERCIA L EXPEDIENCY WITH THOSE SISTER-CONCERNS. IF IT IS FOR NON-BUSINESS P URPOSES OR OUT OF THE INTEREST-BEARING FUNDS THEN ONLY THE IMPUGNED DISAL LOWANCE CAN BE MADE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESS MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (II) REVENUES APPEAL (FOR A.Y. 1996-97) 9. THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND WHICH IS ARGUED BEFORE US IS GROUND NO.1; REPRODUCED BELOW:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,14,450/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A CCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 9.1 THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TH AT CERTAIN NEW DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.4,14,450/- WERE APPEARED I N THE BALANCE-SHEET. THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THOSE PERSONS ALONG WITH THEIR CONFIRMATION LETTERS, SOURCE OF INCOME, ETC. AS PRE SCRIBED U/S.68 OF THE I.T.ACT. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSES SEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS U/S.68, HENCE THE IMPUGNED ADDIT ION WAS MADE. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.4,14,450/- A SUM OF RS.3,09,600/- WAS IN THE NAM E OF M/S.SANTRAM POLYMERS. IN THIS REGARD, THE EXPLANATION WAS THAT THE MATERIAL WAS ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 9 - PURCHASED AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS OUTSTANDING AS A TRADE CREDITOR. ON APPRECIATION OF CERTAIN FACTS, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 6.6. IN CASE OF M/S.SANTRAM POLYMERS THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT REVEALS THAT APPELLANT HAS MADE PURCHASES WORTH RS. 6,72,600 FROM THE PARTY AND DURING THE YEAR PAYMENT AGGREGATING T O RS.3,63,000 BY CHEQUES WAS MADE TO THE PARTY LEAVING CLOSING BA LANCE OF RS.3,09,600. THE COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS HAVING S ALES TAX NUMBER OF PARTY HAVE ALSO BEEN FURNISHED AND HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE DOUBTED. THE ADDITION DURING THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS NOW FURNISHED. TH E SALES MADE BY THE AO HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND THERE CANNOT BE SA LE WITHOUT PURCHASE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.3,09,600 IS THEREFORE, NOT JUSTIFIED AND SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 10. REST OF THE AMOUNT PERTAINED TO DIFFERENT PARTI ES NINE IN NUMBERS AND IN THIS REGARD THOSE PARTIES WERE PRODUCED DURI NG REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND THEY ARE CONFIRMED OF THE IMPUGNED ADVANCE, HENCE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS GRANTED RELIEF VIDE FOLLOW ING PARAGRAPH:- 6.5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPE LLANT, ARGUMENTS PUTFORTH BY THE COUNSEL AND THE REPORT OF THE AO. THE FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ALSO CONSIDERED . IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION FOR WANT OF DETAILS. DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE AO HAS STATED THAT DEPOSITS ARE INGENUINE SINCE DEPOSITORS WERE NOT PRODUCED BY APPELLANT. T HE APPELLANT HAS HOWEVER, FURNISHED CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE DEPOS ITORS WHILE THE AO HAS STATED THAT NO CONFIRMATIONS ARE FILED. IT IS NOTICED THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM NINE PERSONS WERE RS.10,0 00 EACH AND INTEREST OF RS.1,800/1500/1650 WAS CREDITED. THE SE AMOUNTS ARE SMALL DEPOSITS ACCEPTED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS WHO HA VE CONFIRMED OF HAVING GIVEN AMOUNT TO THE APPELLANT AND THEIR S OURCE HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED IN THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED WHEREIN C OMPLETE ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 10 - ADDRESSES OF THE DEPOSITORS ARE ALSO FURNISHED. TH E AO HAS GIVEN THE REASON THAT THESE PERSONS ARE NOT PRODUCED BEFO RE HIM. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF AMOUNT AND MO RE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE DEPOSITORS HAVE AGRICULTURAL HOLDING WHICH IS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE SUCH SMALL DEPOSITS WITH THE APPELLANT. THE SAME IS THEREFORE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE DEPOSITS AND ADDITION MADE OF RS.90,000 PLUS INTEREST OF RS.14,850 AGGREGATING TO RS.1,04,850 IN CASE OF ABOVE PERSONS IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS AS ALSO THE COMPILATION FILED. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN RESPECT OF M/S.SANTRAM POLYMERS THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF THE CHEQUES THROUGH WHICH THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TRANSACTE D WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, SUCH AS, DETAILS OF SALES AND DETAILS OF PURCHASES, ETC. IT HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON RECORD THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT Y EAR THE ASSESSEE HAD RE-PAID TO THE SAID CREDITOR. THUS, TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTS TO AFFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT( APPEALS). IN RESPECT OF THE DEPOSITS OF SEVERAL PARTIES AND EACH DEPOSIT IS FOUND TO BE SMALL AMOUNTS THE FACTS HAVE REVEALED THAT THOSE PERSONS WERE PRESENT AND ACCEPTED HAVING GIVEN THE SAID AMOUNT OUT OF THEIR AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDINGS. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO DISTUR B THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. [B] ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 (I) ASSESSEES APPEAL 12. GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY HOLDING THAT ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 11 - THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,62,500/- IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK CONSIDERING THE SAME AS NONGENUINE. 12.1. AT THE OUTSET AND ALSO AS PER THE SUMMARIZED CHART, THIS GROUND IS NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE, HENCE DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 13. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER:- 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DRAWN CONCLUSION THAT SUNDRY CREDITORS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,54,342/- OUT OF TOT AL CREDITORS OF RS.2,69,342/- HA REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND THEREFORE , HE HAS RIGHTLY ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE A PPELLANT. 13.1. THE BIFURCATION OF THE ADDITION WAS AS UNDER: - (I) RS.1,97,842 IS OUTSTANDING TO APPY PLASTIC FR OM WHOM APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED GOODS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS C LAIM, THE COUNSEL FURNISHED A COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT SHOWING PURCHASES DURING THE YEAR FROM THE ABOVE PARTY AND ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE A O TO TREAT THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED. (II) RS.15,000 IS STATED TO BE CREDIT BALANCE IN CASE OF MR.SHAILESH R.VYAS DUE TO PROVISION MADE FOR ACCOUN TING CHARGES PAYABLE TO HIM. TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS PLEA, COUNSEL FURNISHED A COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT AND ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE AO TO TREAT THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED. (III) RS.17,500 DEPOSIT RECEIVED FROM HITESH P PATEL CONFIRMATION FILED. ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 12 - (IV) RS.12,000 DEPOSIT RECEIVED FROM JYOTIKABEN M.PATEL CONFIRMATION FILED. (V) RS.27,000 CREDIT BALANCE IN CASE OF SHREEJI FRAMING AGENCY AS PER THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT FURNISHED. 13.2. DUE TO INSUFFICIENT EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION WHICH WAS CONTESTED. THE LEARNED CIT( APPEALS) HAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT. IN RESPECT OF RS.1,97,842/- T HE SAME WAS CONFIRMED AS FOLLOWS:- (II) REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS .2,69,342, IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE COUNSEL THAT RS.1,97,842 IS OUTSTANDING TO APPY PLASTIC FROM WHOM APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED GOOD S. THE COUNSEL FURNISHED A COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT SHOWING PURCHASES DURING THE YEAR FROM THE ABOVE PARTY AND ARGUED THA T THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE AO TO TREAT THE SA ME AS UNEXPLAINED. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT NEITHER FURNIS HED ANY COPY OF INVOICES NOR ANY CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED SO AS TO ACCEPT THE SAME AS GENUINE CREDITOR. UNLESS DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE IS NOT FURNISHED, THE PLEA CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND THEREFOR E ADDITION MADE OF RS.1,97,842 STANDS SUSTAINED. 13.3. IN SUPPORT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.15,000/-, T HE SAME WAS DELETED AS PER THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- (III) FURTHER RS.15,000 IS STATED TO BE THE CREDIT BALANCE IN THE CASE OF MR.SHAILESH R.VYAS DUE TO PROVISION MADE FO R ACCOUNTING CHARGES PAYABLE TO HIM. THE COUNSEL FURNISHED A CO PY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT AND ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION O N THE PART OF THE AO TO TREAT THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED. THE AO IN TH E REMAND REPORT HAS ACCEPTED THAT ACCOUNTING CHARGES ARE RIG HTLY PROVIDED AND THEREFORE ADDITION MADE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELET ED. ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 13 - 13.4. IN RESPECT OF REST OF THE ADDITIONS, THOSE W ERE CONFIRMED VIDE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS:- (IV) REGARDING THE DEPOSITS OF RS.17,500 RECEIVED FROM HITESH P PATEL AND RS.12,000 RECEIVED FROM JYOTIKABEN M PATE L, THE APPELLANT FAILED TO EVEN FURNISH CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE PARTIES AND THEREFORE ADDITION MADE IS CONFIRMED. (V) RS.27,000 CREDIT BALANCE IS CASE OF SHREEJI FARMING AGENCY THOUGH THE LEDGER ACCOUNT HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FURTHER MATERIAL EVIDENCE SUC H AS CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM SHREEJI FARMING AGENCY, TH E ADDITION MADE OF RS.27,000 STANDS SUSTAINED. 14. HAVING HERD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED PURCHASE STATED TO BE FR OM M/S.APPY PLASTICS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY CONFIRMATION OR COPY OF INVOICES SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID CREDITOR. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ESTABLISHING THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE SAID PARTY, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE RIGHT IN TAKING AN ADV ERSE VIEW AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THIS PART OF THE GROUND IS DISMISSED. 15. ABOUT AN ADDITION OF RS.17,500/- STATED TO BE R ECEIVED FROM SHRI HITESH P.PATEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT CAS H WAS RECEIVED AND THE PURPOSE WAS TO MAKE THE PAYMENT TO CREDITOR. LIKEW ISE, RS.12,000/- WAS STATED TO BE RECEIVED FROM JYOTIKABEN M.PATEL IN CA SH BUT NO ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 14 - CONFIRMATION WAS EVEN PLACED DURING REMAND PROCEEDI NGS OR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). EVEN BEFORE US, NO SATISFACT ORY EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED, HENCE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. IN RESPECT OF RS.27,000/- STATED TO BE RECEIVED FROM SHREEJI FARMING AGENCY AS PER THE COMPILATION A LEDGER ACC OUNT IS ON RECORD WHICH WAS ALSO BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY . A CONFIRMATION IS ALSO ON RECORD THROUGH WHICH THE SAID TRANSACTION W AS AFFIRMED. OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN ON THE LEDGER ACCOUNT TO D EMONSTRATE THAT SOME OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AN D THE DETAILS OF CHEQUES WERE ALSO REFERRED IN THOSE ACCOUNTS. TH E SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SAID PARTY IS SUBJECT TO TAX I N THE SAME WARD WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED AND THAT THE IDENTITY AS ALSO THE SOURCE WAS VERY MUCH IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. C ONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD AND THE SUBMISSION OF LD.AR THI S PART OF THE ADDITION THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. WE HOLD ACCORDIN GLY. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. GROUND NO.3 READS AS UNDER:- 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT O F THE AMOUNT INTRODUCED AS CAPITAL TO THE EXTENT OF RS.79,441/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1,99,924/- AFTER HOLDING THAT THE BA LANCE AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. 16.1. IT WAS NOTICED THAT A SUM OF RS.75,441/- WA S IN THE ACCOUNT OF KAIWAL AGRO PRODUCTS, A SUM OF RS.62,000/- IN THE A CCOUNT OF M/S.SHREEJI AGRO TRADERS AND THERE WAS A DIFFERENC E IN THE PERSONAL ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 15 - BALANCE-SHEET OF RS.62,483/-. THUS, TOTALITY OF RS.1,99,924/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT OUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME THE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BIT CONVINCED AND THE ADDITIONS WAS MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 68 OF THE I.T.ACT. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS GRANTED PART RELIEF AS PER THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH:- (VI) REGARDING THE AMOUNT ADDED BY THE AO OF RS. 1,99,924, THE COUNSEL STATED THAT RS.75,441 BEING CREDITS IN THE ACCOUNT WITH KAIWAL AGRO PRODUCTS AND RS.62,000 BEING CREDITS IN ACCOUNT WITH SHREEJI AGRO TRADERS, THE SOURCE TO SUCH CREDI TS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.58,000 BEING AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM BANK IS A CCEPTED. FURTHER, THE AMOUNT OF RS.62,483 HAS BEEN STATED TO BE DIFFERENCE IN PERSONAL CAPITAL I.E. PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET IS ONLY A JOTTING OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND THERE IS NO SUCH RECEIPT OR ADDITION IN PERSONAL CAPITAL. THE ADDITION MADE TO THIS EXTENT IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED. THE SOURCE OF REMAINING CREDITS IS STAT ED TO BE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR WHICH NO EVIDENCE IN THE FO RM OF BILLS ARE FURNISHED EXCEPT COPIES OF ABSTRACTS OF 7/12 AND 8A FROM WHICH AGRICULTURAL INCOME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THUS OUT O F TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1,99,924, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.79 ,441 STANDS CONFIRMED SINCE APPELLANT FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOU RCE OF CREDITS WITH NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 17. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.62,483/- BECAUSE THAT ADDITION WAS MERELY BASED UPON CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN THE PERSONAL BALANCE-SHEET WHICH HAD NOT MATCHED WITH T HE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT THOSE WERE MERELY CERTAIN JOTTINGS AND SHOULD NOT BE MADE BASIS FOR ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 16 - ADDITION. IN RESPECT OF REST OF THE TWO AMOUNTS SI NCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BILLS IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODU CE BUT FURNISHED ABSTRACTS OF 7/12 AND 8-A TO PROVE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND-HOLDING, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS STATED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGE D THE PRIMARY ONUS. WHEN THIS FACT WAS CONFRONTED TO THE LD.AR, HE HAS AGAIN SHOWN US THE PROOF OF AGRICULTURAL LAND-HOLDING BUT OTHERWISE HE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT SOME AGRICULTURAL OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE GIVEN OP PORTUNITIES DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, FURTHER DURING REMAND PROCE EDINGS AND THEN DURING FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. BUT THE ASSESS EE FAILED TO STRENGTHEN HIS CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THEREFORE EVEN AT THIS STAGE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT MATERIAL, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO DISTURB THE FACTUAL FINDING OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE SAME IS HERE BY CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 18. GROUND NO.4 READS AS UNDER:- 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED INTERE ST OF RS.29,748/- HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN DIVERTED TO NON-INTERES T BEARING FUNDS. 18.1. A SUM OF RS.29,748/- WAS CLAIMED AS INTEREST BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER AS AGAINST THAT IT WAS FOUND THAT CERTAIN A DVANCES WERE MADE TO SISTER-CONCERNS ON WHICH NO INTEREST WAS RECEIVED. AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER, THE DETAILS OF INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES WERE AS UNDER- ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 17 - (1) M/S.KAIWAL AGRO TRADERS - RS.5,50,23 3/- (2) SHREEJI FARMING AGENCY - RS. 27,000/- (3) MARUTI AGRO EQUIPMENT - RS.1,48,175/- 18.2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED THAT THOS E CONCERNS HAVE SOLD THE ASSETS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS OF ADVANCE OF NON-INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. AC CORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, OUT OF THE INTEREST-BEARING FUNDS THE IMPU GNED INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN TO THE SISTER-CONCERNS. IN THE RESULT, THE CLAIM OF INTEREST WAS DISALLOWED. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRI ED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS F OLLOWED HIS FINDING FOR A.Y. 1996-97 AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. 19. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AS ALSO THE NOTING OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN RESPECT OF THE FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT ON THOSE FACTS WE HAVE ALREADY TAKEN A VIEW WHILE DECIDING APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1996-97 (IN ITA NO.571/AHD/2005), THE SAME IS FOLLOWED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THIS GROUND IS RESTORED BACK FOR RE-ADJUDICATIO N AS PER THE DIRECTIONS. (II) REVENUES APPEAL (FOR A.Y. 1997-98) 20. GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER: I. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,62,500/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEP OSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 18 - 20.1. ON VERIFICATION OF BANK ACCOUNT WITH CNSB BAN K, CERTAIN DEPOSITS WERE NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE ABS ENCE OF AN EXPLANATION, THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS WERE ADDED:- 1. APRIL, 1996 RS. 9,500/- 2. DECEMBER, 1996 RS.1,35,000/- 3. MARCH, 1997 RS. 18,000/- TOTAL RS.1,62,500/- 21. BEFORE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), IT WAS EXPLAINED T HAT THOSE ENTRIES WERE NOTHING BUT TRANSFER FROM VEHICLE LOAN. AFTER VERIFICATION OF FACTS, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. 22. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE DETAILS OF THE CHEQUES WHICH W ERE TRANSFERRED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, THEREFORE WE ARE NOT INCLI NED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS ON FACTS AS NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A PPEALS), HENCE THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 23. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER: 2. THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,20,483/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED CASH CREDITS IN THE ACCOUNT OF KAIWAL AGRO PRODUCTS, SHR EEJI AGRO TRADERS AND PERSONAL CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 23.1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT A CASH O F RS.62,483/- WAS INTRODUCED IN THE CAPITAL AND A CASH OF RS.75,441/- AND RS.62,000/- WERE INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF ANOTHER CONCERNS THEREFO RE THE ENTIRE TOTAL SUM OF RS.1,99,924/- WAS TAXED SINCE THE A HAS NOT ESTA BLISHED THE SOURCE OF ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 19 - DEPOSIT. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ON EXAMINATION OF FACTS A PART RELIEF WAS GRANTED A S FOLLOWS:- (IV) REGARDING THE AMOUNT ADDED BY THE AO OF RS.1 ,99,924, THE COUNSEL STATED THAT RS.75,441 BEING CREDITS IN THE ACCOUNT WITH KAIWAL AGRO PRODUCTS AND RS.62,000 BEING CREDITS IN ACCOUNT WITH SHREEJI AGRO TRADERS, THE SOURCE TO SUCH CREDI TS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.58,000 BEING AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM BANK IS AC CEPTED. FURTHER, THE AMOUNT OF RS.62,483 HAS BEEN STATED TO BE DIFFERENCE IN PERSONAL CAPITAL I.E. PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET IS ONLY A JOTTING OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND THERE IS NO SUCH RECEIPT OR ADDITION IN PERSONAL CAPITAL. THE ADDITION MADE TO THIS EXTENT IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED. THE SOURCE OF REMAINING CREDITS IS STAT ED TO BE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR WHICH NO EVIDENCE IN THE FO RM OF BILLS ARE FURNISHED EXCEPT COPIES OF ABSTRACTS OF 7/12 AND 8A FROM WHICH AGRICULTURAL INCOME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THUS OUT O F TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1,99,924, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.79 ,441 STANDS CONFIRMED SINCE APPELLANT FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOU RCE OF CREDITS WITH NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 24. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, AS FAR AS THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS CONCERNED, IT IS CORRECT THAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN JOTTING S AND THAT AMOUNT OF RS.58,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK, THEREFORE TO THAT EXTENT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS HEREBY CO NFIRMED. IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE ADDITION, THE QUESTION WAS PROOF OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATION ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. AS NOTED ABOVE, THE ASSE SSEE HAS NEITHER PLACED DETAILS OF THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION NOR THE EVIDE NCE OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, THEREFORE WE HAVE TAKEN A VIE W THAT THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. DUE TO THIS REASO N, FOR THIS YEAR AS WELL, WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE FINDING OF THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES, HENCE THE PART ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 20 - RELIEF GRANTED IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. [C] ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 (I) ASSESSEES APPEAL 25. THE ONLY GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS FOLLOW S:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT O F THE AMOUNT INTRODUCED AS CAPITAL TO THE EXTENT OF RS.93,100/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.2,85,478/- AFTER HOLDING THAT THE BA LANCE AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. 25.1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOUND THAT A SUM O F RS.86,000/- WAS INTRODUCED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THE INDIVIDUAL C APITAL AND FURTHER A SUM OF RS.99,478/- AND A SUM OF RS.1 LAC WERE INTRODUCE D IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF TWO CONCERNS; (I) KAIWAL AGRO PRODUCTS A ND (II) SHREEJI AGRO TRADERS. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER EXPLANATION, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.2,85,478/- WAS TAXED. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BE FORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO HAS GRANTED PART RELIEF AS FOLLOWS:- (II) REGARDING AMOUNT ADDED BY THE AO OF RS.2,85 ,478, THE COUNSEL STATED THAT RS.99,478 ARE CAPITAL INTRODUCE D WITH KAIWAL AGRO PRODUCTS AND RS.1,00,000 BEING CAPITAL INTRODU CED WITH SHREEJI AGRO TRADERS, THE SOURCE TO THE EXTENT OF R S.2,478 AND RS.1,03,900 AGGREGATING TO RS.1,06,378 BEING AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM BANK BANK BY THE APPELLANT AND UTILIZED IN SUC H CREDITS IS ACCEPTED. FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS.86,000 HAS BEEN STA TED TO BE A ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 21 - DIFFERENCE IN PERSONAL CAPITAL I.E. PERSONAL BALANC E SHEET IS ONLY A JOTTING OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND THERE IS NO S UCH RECEIPT OR ADDITION IN PERSONAL CAPITAL. THE ADDITION MADE TO THIS EXTENT IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED. THE SOURCE OF BALANCE CREDIT I S STATED TO BE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR WHICH NO EVIDENCE IN THE FO RM OF BILLS ARE FURNISHED EXCEPT COPIES OF ABSTRACTS OF 7/12 AND 8A FROM WHICH AGRICULTURAL INCOME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THUS OUT O F TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.2,85,478, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.93 ,100 STANDS CONFIRMED. 26. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE AMOUNTS WHICH WERE TRANSACTED THROUGH BANK AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE OF SOURCE OF DEPOS IT, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS FAIRLY GRANTED THE RELIEF. IN RES PECT OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD THE SO URCE OF FUNDS THOUGH ALLEGEDLY CLAIMED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN THE A BSENCE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OR SALES BILLS, WE HAVE ALREADY AFFIRMED TH E STAND OF THE REVENUE IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS, THEREFORE THE PART RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (II) REVENUES APPEAL (FOR A.Y. 1998-99) 27. GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.43,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. AS UNEXPLAINED DEPO SITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 22 - 27.1. ON VERIFICATION OF CNSB BANK ACCOUNT, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A SUM OF RS.21,000/- IN JULY -1997 AND A SUM OF RS.22,000/- IN OCTOBER-1997 WERE DEPOSITED. IN THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE EXPLANATION, THE TOTAL OF THE TWO RS.43, 000/- WAS TAXED. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY AND ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT TH E IMPUGNED DEPOSITS WERE TRANSFERRED OUT OF VEHICLE LOAN AMOUNT, HENCE DELETED THE ADDITION. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS, WE FIND NO FALLACY IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISC USSION FOR THIS YEAR AS WELL, WE HEREBY REJECT THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE AN D GROUND IS DISMISSED. 28. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER:- 2. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,92,378/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED CASH CREDITS IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 28.1. WHILE DEALING WITH GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSE E FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, I.E. A.Y. 1998-99, WE HAVE ALREADY A FFIRMED THE PART RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION MADE HEREINABOVE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO DISTURB TH E VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), HENCE AFFIRM THE SAME AND DIS MISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 23 - [D] ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 (I) ASSESSEES APPEAL 29. GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.29,270/- OUT OF TOTAL DEPOSIT OF RS.69,270/- MADE IN THE BANK CO NSIDERING THE SAME AS NONGENUINE. 29.1 FOR THIS YEAR AS WELL CERTAIN DEPOSITS WERE NO TICED IN CNSB BANK BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS FOLLOWS:- 1. APRIL, 1998 RS. 15,000/- 2. JUNE, 1998 RS.12,000/- 3. SEPTEMBER, 1998 RS.40,000/- 4. DECEMBER, 1998 RS.2,270/- TOTAL RS.69,270/- 29.2. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER EXPLANATION, THE TOT AL AMOUNT OF RS.69,270/- WAS TAXED. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, A PART RELIEF WAS GRANTED BY T HE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AS FOLLOWS:- (I) REGARDING THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED INTO BANK AGGR EGATING TO RS.69,270 THE ENTRY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.40,000 HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BEING AMOUNT TRANSFERRED FROM VEHICLE LOAN ACCOUNT WHICH ARE ALSO VERIFIED BY THE AO. THE OTHER ENTRIES BEING C ASH 29,270 ENTRIES, REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. IN THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, I HOLD THAT ADDITION MADE TO THE EXTENT OF ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 24 - RS.40,000 IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.29,270 STANDS SUSTAINED. 30. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE NOTED THAT A SUM OF RS.40,000/- WAS TRANSFERRED FROM VEHICLE L OAN AMOUNT. REST OF THE ENTRIES REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. A VIEW HAS ALREA DY BEEN TAKEN IN THIS REGARD, THEREFORE THE PART RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LE ARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. 31. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER:- 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II, BARODA AHS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT T HE AMOUNT INTRODUCED AS CAPITAL TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,91,196/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.4,29,980/- AFTER HOLDING THAT THE B ALANCE AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. 32.1. A SUM OF RS.1,38,784/- IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUN T AND A SUM OF RS.1,96,196/- AND RS.95,000/- INTRODUCED IN THE SAI D TWO CONCERNS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED, THEREFORE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.4,29,980/- WAS TAXED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED CIT(A PPEALS) HAS GRANTED PART RELIEF AS PER THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- (II) REGARDING THE AMOUNT ADDED BY THE AO OF RS.4 ,29,980 THE COUNSEL STATED THAT RS.1,96,196 ARE CAPITAL INTRODU CED WITH KAIWAL AGRO PRODUCTS AND RS.85,000 BEING CAPITAL INTRODUCE D WITH SHREEJI AGRO TRADERS, THE SOURCE REMAINED UNEXPLAIN ED SINCE NO ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 25 - DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF SALARY FROM ADARSH PLANT PR OTECT LTD. OF RS.1,14,000 HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. THE AGRICULTURAL I NCOME OF RS.1,74,000 IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED SINCE NO EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF BILLS ARE FURNISHED EXCEPT COPIES OF ABSTRACTS OF 7 /12 AND 8A FROM WHICH AGRICULTURAL INCOME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,38,784 HOWEVER, HAS BEEN STATED TO BE A DIFFER ENCE IN PERSONAL CAPITAL I.E. PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET IS ONL Y A JOTTING OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND THERE IS NO SUCH RECEIPT OR ADDITION IN PERSONAL CAPITAL. THE ADDITION MADE TO THIS EXTENT IS THEREFORE, NOT JUSTIFIED. THUS OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.4,29,9 80, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,38,784 STANDS DELETED AND BAL ANCE AMOUNT OF RS.2,91,196 STANDS CONFIRMED. 33. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE FACTS O F THE CASE AND THEREAFTER JUDICIOUSLY GRANTED PART RELIEF. AT THI S STAGE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THOSE FACTUAL FINDING OF LD.CIT(A), HENCE HEREBY CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. (II) REVENUES APPEAL (FOR A.Y. 1999-2000) 34. GROUND NOS.1 & 2 READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.40,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. AS UNEXPLAINED DEPO SITS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 26 - 2. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,38,784/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED CASH CREDITS IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 34.1. THESE GROUNDS WE HAVE ALREADY DEALT WITH IN R EVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1998-99 (SUPRA). SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICA L IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE FOLLOW THE VIEW TAKEN IN REVENUE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1998-99 AND DISMISS THESE GROUNDS THIS YEAR AS WELL . 35. WE SUMMARIZE THE RESULT AS UNDER:- (I) ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1996-97 IS PARTLY ALLOWE D BUT STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (II) REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1996-97 IS DISMISSED. (III) ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1997-98 IS PARTLY ALLOWE D BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (IV) REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1997-98 IS DISMISSED. (V) ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1998-99 IS DISMISSED. (VI) REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1998-99 IS DISMISSED. (VII) ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 IS DISMISSED. (VIII) REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- ( A.K. GARODIA ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER AHMEDABAD; DATED 21/ 12 /2011 /..(, .(../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NOS.571 TO 574/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & 671 TO 674/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) SH.HASMUKHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO/ACIT ASST.YEARS - 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 - 27 - '. * 01 2'1- '. * 01 2'1- '. * 01 2'1- '. * 01 2'1-/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 34 / THE APPELLANT 2. 0534 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6() / THE CIT(A)-II, BARODA 5. 19# 0( , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. # :) / GUARD FILE. '.( '.( '.( '.( / BY ORDER, 51 0 //TRUE COPY// ; ;; ;/ // / < < < < ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION..15.12.11 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 16.12.11 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S21.12.2011 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 21.12.2011 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER