Shri Rajshekhar J.Aiyer, Bhavnagar V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-1, Bhavnagar

ITA 668/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5134 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJAN KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: P B PARMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ITA NO. 668/AHD/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) SHRI RAJSHEKHAR J. AIYER PLOT NO.414, SURVEY NO.244 GITANJALI SAGWADI KALIYA BID BHAVNAGAR 364 001 / VS. THE ACIT RANGE-1 BHAVNAGAR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ADCPA 5140 J ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.B. PARMAR, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RANJAN KUMAR SINGH, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING 08/01/2019 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/02/2019 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)6, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-6 /17/14-15 DATED 29.01.2016 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U NDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS ' THE ACT') DATED 24.03.2014 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 2 - 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON TH E FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF IN DISALLOWING COM MISSION EXPENDITURE OF RS. 10,10,000/-. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN ADDING RS. 9 0,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCTION. 3. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, L EARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DIRECTED THE AO OUGHT TO GRANT BENEFI T OF TELESCOPING. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN DISALLOWING RS. 2,05,290/- U/S.32 AFTER HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED EXCESS DEPRECIATION. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN DISALLOWING RS. 52,342/- U/S.37 OF THE ACT BEING 20% OF TELEPHONE AND ADMINI STRATIVE EXPENDITURES ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USAGE. 6. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORDERS W ITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT AND THAT THEY FURTHER ERRED I N GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND INFORMATION S UBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEE N CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS IN CLEAR BREACH OF LAW AND PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S.234A/B/C/D OF THE ACT. 8. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN INITIATING PENA LTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,10,000/-. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS PAID COMMISSION TO VARIOUS PARTIES ( 11 IN NOS.) ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 3 - AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,34,944/-. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPE CT OF 9 PARTIES OUT OF 11 PARTIES TO WHOM THE COMMISSION WAS PAID HAS FURN ISHED THE NECESSARY DETAILS. BUT, THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF TWO PARTI ES, NAMELY, SHRI NAYAN GULABRAI SHAH AND SHRI ANKIT P. GOYAL TO WHOM THE C OMMISSION OF RS. 5,20,000/- AND RS. 4,90,000/- RESPECTIVELY WAS PAID , HAS FURNISHED ONLY COMPUTERIZED GENERATED BILLS AND CONFIRMATIONS. AS PER THE DETAILS, THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO BOTH THE PARTIES AGAINST THE HUGE QUANTITY OF SALE OF 5200 METRIC TON ( FOR SHORT M.T.) AND 4900 M.T. BUT THERE WAS NO DETAIL SUCH AS DATE-WISE/BILL-WISE FOR THE GOODS SO LD TO THE PARTIES WITH REFERENCE TO THE COMMISSION AGENTS, FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (FOR SHORT AO) TO THE ASSESSE. 4.1. IN COMPLIANCE TO IT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO H AVE MADE PAYMENT AFTER DEDUCTING THE TDS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED T HE COPIES OF THE REVISED BILLS ISSUED BY THE RESPECTIVE COMMISSION AGENTS WH ICH WERE CONTAINING THE REQUISITE INFORMATION. 4.2. HOWEVER, THE AO OBSERVED CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME STAND AS UNDER: (1) IN THE FIRST COMMISSION BILL, THE RATE OF COMMISSI ON WAS MENTIONED RS. 100/- PER M.T. WHEREAS IN THE SECOND BILL, THE RATE OF COMMISSION IS MENTIONED RS. 200/- M.T. (2) THERE WAS ALSO A CHANGE IN THE QUANTITY OF THE GOOD S SOLD BY THE RESPECTIVE COMMISSION AGENTS. AS PER THE REVISED BI LLS, SHRI ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 4 - NAYAN GULABRAI SHAH HAS SOLD 2630.11 MT, WHEREAS SH RI ANKIT P. GOYAL HAS SOLD THE QUANTITY OF 2443.95 MT WHILE IN THE ORIGINAL BILLS THE QUANTITIES SOLD BY THESE COMMISS ION AGENTS WERE 5200 M.T. AND 4900 M.T. RESPECTIVELY. (3) IN THE FIRST BILLS, THE COMMISSION WAS PAID ONLY A GAINST THE SALE OF GOODS, WHEREAS IN THE REVISED BILL, THE COMMISSI ON WAS PAID AGAINST THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOODS. IN RESPECT OF REMAINING NINE COMMISSION AGENTS, THE COMMISSION WAS PAID REG ARDING THE SALE OF GOODS ONLY. (4) IN THE LEDGER COPY OF SHRI NAYAN GULABRAI SHAH AN A MOUNT OF RS. 622/- WAS WRITTEN OFF AS AN ADJUSTMENT. (5) IN THE ORIGINAL BILLS, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID COMMIS SION TO ALL THE AGENTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE QUANTITY 12184.48 M. T., WHEREAS THE TOTAL SALE IS DECLARED OF 7615.82 MT ONLY. 4.3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT THE ADJUSTMENT IN THE COMMISSION PAID TO THESE PARTIES HAS BEEN MA DE EITHER TO MANIPULATE THE WEIGHT OR THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE COMMISSION PAID TO T HESE TWO PARTIES IS FABRICATED AND NON-GENUINE. THUS, HE DISALLOWED TH E COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS. 10,10,000/- AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LD . CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE DETAILS OF COMMISSION SU BMITTED FIRST TIME DURING THE HEARING BEFORE THE AO WHICH WAS RECTIFIE D FROM REVISED BILLS FILED BY THE COMMISSION AGENTS. ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 5 - 5.1. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID COMMISSION TO THESE PART IES @ RS. 200/- PER M.T., WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF REMAINING PARTIES HE H AS PAID COMMISSION @ RS. 200/- PER M.T. 5.2. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THERE IS A DECLINE IN TH E NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE IN COMPARISON TO THE EARLIER YEAR. THUS, THE DISCREPANCIES OBSERVED BY THE AO IN THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION AND OTHER DETAILS ARE REPRESENTING THE NON-GENUINE COMMISSION TO THE PART IES. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR FILED PAPER-BOOK RUNNING F ROM PAGES 1 TO 59 AND SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD PAID THE COMMISSION AGAIN ST THE REVISED BILLS RAISED BY THE COMMISSION AGENTS. THE COMMISSION WAS PAID AFTER THE DEDUCTION OF TDS. THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES HAS BEEN FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ALL THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES ON WHOSE BEHALF THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO THESE AGENTS WERE FURNISHED. 8.1. THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM DREW OUR AT TENTION ON PAGE NOS. 30 TO 39 WHERE THE NECESSARY DETAILS FOR THE C OMMISSION WERE PLACED. ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 6 - 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DISCREPANCIES WERE THERE IN THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. 9.1. THERE WAS NO DETAIL FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATING THAT THE COMMISSION WAS PAID AS PER THE PREVAILING INTER EST RATE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. DR PRAYED BEFORE US TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRE SH AFTER CONDUCTING THE NECESSARY INQUIRIES. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AO IN THE IN STANT CASE NOTED CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES REGARDING THE COMMISSION EXPE NSES PAID TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES. 1. SHREE NAYAN GULAB RAI SHAH 2. SHREE ANKIT P. GOYAL 10.1 THE DISCREPANCIES NOTED BY THE AO HAVE ALR EADY BEEN ELABORATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. THUS THE AO MADE THE DI SALLOWANCES OF THE COMMISSION EXPENSES. THE LEARNED CIT-A SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO. FROM THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION WE NOTE CERTAIN UNDISPUTED FACTS AS UNDER: I. THE COMMISSION WAS PAID THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. II. THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO THE PARTIES AFTER THE DE DUCTION OF TDS UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 7 - III. THE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS WAS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE FROM BOTH THE PARTIES. IV. THERE WAS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF BOTH THE P ARTIES TO WHOM THE COMMISSION WAS PAID. V. THE ADDRESSES OF BOTH THE COMMISSION AGENTS WERE AV AILABLE BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 10.2. HOWEVER, THE AO WITHOUT FINDING OUT ANY DE FECT IN THE DETAILS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE HAS TREATED THE COMMISSION EXPENSES AS IF IT WAS NOT INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS. AS PER TH E AO, THE COMMISSION EXPENSES WAS NOT GENUINE AND THE SAME WAS FABRICATE D. THE BASIS ADOPTED BY THE AO FOR TREATING THE COMMISSION EXPEN SES AS NON-GENUINE HAS ALREADY BEEN ELABORATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGR APH. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND TO AVOID REPETITION. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AO BEFORE MAKING THE DI SALLOWANCE OF THE COMMISSION EXPENSES SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE CONFIRMAT ION FROM THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES UNDER SECTION 133(6)/131 OF THE ACT. BUT THE AO FAILED TO DO SO. 10.3. THE AO WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND PARTIES ON BEHALF THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO THESE PARTIES. THUS THE AO, IN CASE OF ANY DOUBT IN THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION EX PENSES, SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES. BUT HE FAI LED TO EXERCISE SUCH POWER PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 133(6)/131 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 8 - 10.4. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT T HE DISCREPANCIES OBSERVED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. AS SUCH THE DISCREPANCIES WERE THERE IN THE DETAILS/SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER/DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECONCILED ALL THESE DISCREPANCIES WITH TH E EXPLANATION AND FROM DOCUMENTARY SHREDS OF EVIDENCE. THUS, IT IS TRANSPI RED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS PRIMARY ONUS BY FURNISHING THE D ETAILS TO THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THE ONUS S HIFTS FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO TO DISPROVE THE EXPLANATION/DETA ILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH COGENT REASONS. BUT THE AO FAILED TO DO SO. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF MAK DATA P. LTD., VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II REPORTED IN 38 TAXMANN.COM 448 WHEREIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD AS UNDER: THE BURDEN IS THEN ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW OTHERWI SE, BY COGENT AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE. WHEN THE INITIAL ONUS PLACED BY THE EXPLANATION, HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY HIM, THE ONUS S HIFTS ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION CONSTIT UTED THE INCOME AND NOT OTHERWISE. 10.5. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE DETAILS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE 1 ST TIME IN RESPECT OF THE COMMISSION EXPENSES HAVE NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FRESH DE TAILS AFTER ADMITTING HIS MISTAKE. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE AO WAS UN DER THE OBLIGATION TO CONSIDER THE FRESH DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF COMPARING THE SAME WITH THE EARLIER SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSE E. IT IS BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED HIS MISTAKE IN RESPECT OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE 1 ST TIME. ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 9 - 10.6. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THERE WERE DISCREPANCIES IN THE BILLS ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION AGENTS WHICH WERE FILED BY THE ASSES SEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS SUCH THERE WAS NO CONTRO L OF THE ASSESSEE OVER THE 3 RD PARTIES WHO HAVE ACTUALLY ISSUED THESE BILLS OF TH E COMMISSION TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE MISTAKES COMMITTED BY 3 RD PARTIES SHOULD NOT BE THE BASIS OF THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS IF THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE 3 RD PARTIES ARE NOT BELIEVABLE, THEN THE AO IS UNDER THE OBLIGATION FOR TAKING THE CLARIFICATION FROM THE CONCERNED PARTIES. 10.7. WE ALSO FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF TH E LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS QUIT E HUGE AMOUNTING TO RS. 24,31,54,719/- WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE COMMISSION AGENTS IN THIS KIND OF TRADE. THE LEARNE D DR HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD AGAINST THE CONTENTION OF THE LE ARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE. 10.8. WE ALSO DISAGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DR TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR CONDUCTING THE NECESSARY I NQUIRIES FROM THE COMMISSION AGENTS. IT IS BECAUSE THE AO HAD SUFFICI ENT DETAILS IN ITS POSSESSION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THERE FORE, WE ARE RELUCTANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE REV ENUE FOR MAKING THE FRESH INQUIRIES ON THE SAME SET OF DOCUMENTS. IN T HIS REGARD WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF ITAT JAIP UR IN CASE OF ABDUL LATIF (130 ITD 255) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 10 - WE DO NOT FEEL TO PROVIDE SECOND INNING TO THE REV ENUE BECAUSE THE ENTIRE FACTS WERE BEFORE THE AO AND THE AO MADE AN ADDITION ON WRONG GROUNDS. 10.9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE NOT IMPRESSE D WITH THE FINDING OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARN ED CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM. HENCE, T HE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. THE NEXT INTER-CONNECTED ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO FOR RS. 90,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION. 11.1. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS SHOWN CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,50,616/- BY WAY OF GIFT FROM HIS REAL BROTHER SHRI SUDARSHAN JAGDISHAN AIYER. THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE US $ 1350 FROM HIS BROTHER. 11.2. HOWEVER, THE AO FOUND THAT US $1350 IS REPRES ENTING INDIAN CURRENCY FOR RS. 60,616/- ONLY. THEREFORE, THE BAL ANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 90,000/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND ACCORDINGLY, ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE, PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 11 - 13. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED TH AT RS. 90,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM HIS BROTHER WHICH IS VERY MUCH RE FLECTING IN THE BANK STATEMENT. 14. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE SUM OF RS. 90,000/- WAS RECEIVED FRO M THE BROTHER. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 15. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 16. THE LD. AR BEFORE US REITERATED THE SUBMISSION AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMI TTED THAT THE TELESCOPING BENEFIT SHOULD BE GIVEN IN CASE THE REC EIPT OF RS. 90,000/- IS NOT TREATED AS A GIFT FROM THE BROTHER OF THE ASSES SEE. 17. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPOR TED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION OF 90,000 ONLY. INDEED THERE WAS A CREDIT AMOUNT REFLECTED IN THE BANK STA TEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO 90,000/- BUT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTA NTIATE THE ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 12 - SAME AS A GIFT RECEIVED FROM HIS BROTHER ON THE BAS IS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 18.1. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US HAS ALSO NOT PROV IDED ANY DETAILS TO ADJUST THE SAME WITH THE TELESCOPING BENEFIT. THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO DISTUR B THE FINDING OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 19. THE THIRD ISSUE RAISED IN THE FOURTH GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLO WANCE OF RS. 2,05,290/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION. 20. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HA S SHOWN ADDITION IN RESPECT OF FACTORY SHEDS, BUILDING, FURNACE, AND PL ANT & MACHINERY. THE ADDITION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THESE ITEMS WAS ALLOCATED BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER-2010 AND AFTER 30 TH SEPTEMBER-2010. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER-2010 CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT THE FULL RATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPREC IATION WAS CLAIMED ON THE BASIS OF THE DATE ON WHICH THE FIXED ASSETS WER E ACTUALLY PUT TO USE. 20.1 THE MAJOR COST ON THE REPLACEMENT AND RENOVATI ON OF FACTORY SHED AND THE FURNACE WAS COMPLETED BEFORE 30/09/2010. A FTER THAT, THE PRODUCTION WAS SUSPENDED BEGINNING FROM 30/09/2010 TO 21/11/2010 WHICH CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE RECORD OF EXCISE. ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 13 - 20.2 THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM ALSO FURN ISHED THE COPY OF THE LEDGER IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES INCURRED FOR ITS FIXE D ASSETS NAMELY FURNACE. 20.3. HOWEVER, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ACTIVITY FOR T HE ADDITION OF PLANT & MACHINERY, RENOVATION/REPLACEMENT OF FACTORY SHED W AS CARRIED UP TO THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCO RDINGLY, THE AO DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION ON FACTORY SHED, BUILDI NG AND PLANT & MACHINERY AMOUNTING TO RS. 39,754/- AND RS. 1,65,53 6/- RESPECTIVELY AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 21. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO T HE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE W ORK WAS SUSPENDED ONLY ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FURNACE. AS SUCH , THERE WAS NO SUSPENSION OF THE WORK FOR THE REPLACEMENT/RENOVATI ON OF THE FACTORY SHED AND BUILDING. 21.1. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE FURNISHED THE NE CESSARY DETAILS DEMONSTRATING THAT THE WORK FOR THE REPLACEMENT/REN OVATION OF FACTORY BUILDING AND SHED WAS COMPLETED MUCH BEFORE 30/09/2 010. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE ACTIVITY FOR THE FURNACE CANN OT BEGIN WITHOUT THE COMPLETION OF FACTORY SHED AND BUILDING. THE FIXED ASSETS IN THE FACTORY SHED AND BUILDING WERE NOT PUT TO USE DUE TO THE WO RK OF FURNACE, BUT IT WAS READY TO PUT TO USE. THEREFORE, EVEN IT IS NOT ACTUALLY USED, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE DEPRECIATION THEREON. ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 14 - 21.2. THERE WAS TWO KINDS OF EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD PLANT & MACHINERY WHICH WERE INCURRED BEFORE 30/09/2010 AND AFTER 30/09/2010. THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE INC URRED BEFORE 30/09/2010 AND AFTER 30/09/2010. THERE IS ALSO NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ADDITION OF PLANT & MACHINERY AND THE ACTIVITY OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE FURNACE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED FOR THE DEPRECIATION ON THE ADDITION OF PLANT & MACHINERY BEFORE 30/09/2010 AT FULL RATE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ACTIVITY OF PRODUCTION WAS SUSPENDED FROM 30/09/2010 TO 21/11/2010. THE LABOR CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,0 1,000/- WERE PAID TO M/S BAPA SITARAM WELDING WORKS VIDE BILL DATED 12/0 3/2011 WHICH WAS CLASSIFIED UNDER THE HEAD FACTORY SHED. ACCORDIN GLY, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 22. AGGRIEVED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 23. THE LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTORY SHED WAS READY TO PUT TO USE. THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE FACTORY S HED/BUILDING AND THE PLANT & MACHINERY WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF FURNACE ACTIVITIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. AR PRAYED TO ALLOW THE DEPRECI ATION AT THE FULL RATE ON THE ADDITION OF FIXED ASSETS BEFORE 30/03/2011. 24. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPOR TED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 15 - 25. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE NOTE T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ADDITIONS IN THE FIXED ASSETS AS DETAILED UND ER: DETAILS OF FIXED ASSETS & DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE NAME OF THE ASSET OPENING WDV ADDITIONS/ BEFORE SEPT. (DEDUCTION) AFTER SEPT. CLOSING BALANCE RATE OF DEPRECIATION DEPRECIATION ADDITIONAL DEPREN.* CLOSING WDV BLOCK-II FACTORY SHED & BLDG. XXXXX BLOCK-III PLANT & MACHINERY XXXXX FURNACE 1,629,298 XXXXX 3,405,957 XXXXX 16,667 795,080 XXXXX 688,456 XXXXX 257,465 2.417,826 XXXXX 1,236,423 XXXXX 1,463,792 4,842,204 XXXXX 5,330,845 XXXXX 1,737,924 10 XXXXXX 15 XXXXX 15 363,329 XXXXXX 706,894 XXXXX 150,904 - XXXXX 261,334 XXXXX 197872 4,478,875 XXXXX 4,362,616 XXXXX 1,389,148 25.1. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AD DITIONS AND READY TO USE OF THE ASSETS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 WERE NOT ACTUALLY PUT TO USE TILL 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF SUCH A DDITIONS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 50% OF THE ACTUAL DEPRECIATION CLAIME D BY IT. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXCESS DEPRECIATION WAS MAD E AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,05,290/-. THE LEARNED CIT (A) SUBSEQUENTLY CO NFIRMED THE VIEW OF THE AO. 25.2. THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US ARISES WHETHER THE ASSETS WERE ACTUALLY READY TO USE IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 WERE ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEPRECIATION A T FULL RATE. ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 16 - 25.3 REGARDING FACTORY SHED AND BUILDING, WE NOTE CERTAIN FACTS AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS AS DETAILED UNDER: I. HE HAS INCURRED LABOR EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO 1,01,000/- DATED 12 TH MARCH 2011. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM H AS ALSO FILED THE COPY OF THE BILL OF M/S BAPA SITARAM WELD ING WORKS. II. THE PRODUCTION ACTIVITY WAS SUSPENDED FROM 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 TO 21 ST NOVEMBER 2011. ALMOST ALL THE EXPENSES ON THE FURNACE WERE INCURRED DURING THE PERIOD WHEN THE WO RK WAS SUSPENDED. AS SUCH THE MAJOR EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 24,17,826/- WERE INCURRED AFTER 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. ON PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED PA RT OF THE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO 7,95,080/- BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. 25.4. FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS, IT IS TRANSPIRED TH AT THE FACTORY SHED AND BUILDING WERE NOT PUT TO USE BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. IT IS BECAUSE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS ONE FACTORY AND T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT T HE PART OF THE FACTORY WAS PUT TO USE INVOLVING AN EXPENDITURE OF 7,95,080.00. THE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY WITH THE SUPPO RTING MATERIALS THAT THE FACTORY SHED AND BUILDING AGAINST SUCH COST WERE PU T TO USE BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. 25.5. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PUT TO USE PART OF THE FACTORY SHED AND BUILDING BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 AND PART OF THE FACTORY SHED AND BUILDING AFTER 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. IF IT IS ONE ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 17 - COMPOSITE BUILDING, THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DEMONS TRATE WITH THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT PART OF THE FACTO RY SHED WAS EITHER READY OR PUT TO USE BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DISTURB THE FINDING OF THE L OWER AUTHORITIES. 25.6. REGARDING THE PLANT AND MACHINERY, WE NOTE TH AT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED THE EXPENSES ON PLANT AND MACHINERY SUBSTANTIALLY BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THESE MACHINERIES WERE READY TO USE. THEREFORE, THESE WER E ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE DEPRECIATION ON SUCH PLANT AND MACHINERY. HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH PLANT AND MACHINERY CANNOT BE USED WITHOU T OPERATING THE FURNACE WHICH WAS NOT READY TO USE BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. THUS IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THE USE OF THE PLANT AND MACHINE RY DEPENDED UPON THE USE OF THE FURNACE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE FU RNACE WAS NOT OPERATIONAL BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. 25.7. NOW THE CONTROVERSY ARISES AS TO WHETHER T HE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THOSE ASSETS WHICH ARE R EADY TO USE BUT WERE NOT PUT TO USE BECAUSE THEIR USE DEPENDS UPON THE O PERATION OF OTHER MACHINERY WHICH WERE NOT ACTUALLY READY TO USE BEFO RE 30 TH SEPTEMBER IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. IN THIS REGARD, WE NOTE THAT THE USE OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY DEPENDED UPON THE OPERATION OF THE FURNACE WHICH WAS NOT PUT TO USE BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 18 - 25.8. THUS, THERE REMAINS NO AMBIGUITY THAT THE P LANT & MACHINERY WERE NOT PUT TO USE BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE O F 50%. THUS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELO W. HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 26. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 52 ,342/- BEING 20% OF TELEPHONE AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES ON AN AD-HOC BASIS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TELEPHONE EX PENSES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 41,982/- A ND 2,19,730/- WHICH IS NOT VERIFIABLE. AS PER THE AO, THE ELEMENT OF P ERSONAL USE OUT OF SUCH EXPENSES CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THEREFORE, THE AO MA DE THE DISALLOWANCE @ 20% OF SUCH EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 52,342/- AN D ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CL AIMED THAT THE AO HAD MADE THE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT ISSUING ANY SHOW-CAUS E NOTICE. 27. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE, PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT AD-HO C DISALLOWANCE IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 27.1. THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE @ 20% IS QUITE UNREASONABLE. HO WEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE B Y OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE NECESSARY DETAILS IN SUP PORT OF THE EXPENSES ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 19 - CLAIMED BY HIM. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF PERSONAL USE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. AC CORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 28. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 29. THE LD. AR BEFORE US REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREAS THE LD. DR VEHEMENTL Y SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 30. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO MA DE THE DISALLOWANCE ON AN AD-HOC BASIS ON THE GROUND THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF PERSONAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE E XPENSES AND OFFICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CANNOT BE RULED OUT. TH EREFORE, THE AO TREATED 20% OF SUCH EXPENSES AS USED FOR THE PERSON AL PUPOSES. THUS AN AMOUNT OF 52,342/- WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO WHICH WAS SUBSEQ UENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). 30.1. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS A LSO NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THAT THERE WAS NO P ERSONAL ELEMENT IN THE AFORESAID EXPENSES. HOWEVER, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE AO BEFORE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES ON AN AD-HO C BASIS SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARL IER YEARS AS WELL AS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS WHICH HE FAILED TO DO. ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 20 - 30.2. HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOW ANCE AT THE RATE OF 20% IS SLIGHTLY ON THE HIGHER SIDE. THEREFORE, IN T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTEN T OF 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 31. THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPE AL ARE GENERAL WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE ANY INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE A DJUDICATION. 32. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 01/02/2019 SD/- SD/- ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( WASEEM AHMED ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/02/2019 &.., .(.. / T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.668/AHD/2016 SHRI RAJESHKUMAR J. AIYER VS. ACIT ASST .YEAR - 2011-12 - 21 - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ( ) / THE CIT(A)-6, AHMEDABAD 5. /01 ((*+ , *+# , ) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 145 6 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) $%, / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 15.1.19 (DICTATION PAD 35- PAG ES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 16.1.19 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. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 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