M/s. Motorol Technologies Ltd., Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4(1), Baroda

ITA 717/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 72815 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P SHAH AR SHRI K C MATHEWS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Reasonable cause; Onus to prove
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! '# '# '# '# $ %&, ! BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT SL. NO(S) ITA NO(S) ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 717/AHD/2009 2003-04 M/S.MOTOROL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. MOTOROL HOSUE RACE COURSE CIRCLE BARODA PAN:AACCM 6446 K ITO WARD-4(1) BARODA 2. 718/AHD/2009 2004-05 ASSESSEE REVENUE 3. 728/AHD/2009 2003-04 REVENUE ASSESSEE 4. 729/AHD/2009 2004-05 REVENUE ASSESSEE ASSESSEE BY : SHRI J.P. SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI K.C. MATHEWS, SR.D.R. $'' ( & / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 22/11/2013 *+, ( & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/01/2014 - / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE CROSS-APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENU E ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-III, BARODA (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) BOTH DATED 04/12/2008 & 05/02/2008 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 200 3-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, T HESE APPEALS WERE ITA NOS.717&718/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND ITA NOS.728&729/AHD/09 (BY REVENUE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 2 - HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.71 7/AHD/2008 FOR AY 2003-04. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND ON LAW IN RETAINING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.38,75,670/- OF THE LOSS RETURNED BY THE APPELLAN T. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. YOUR APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE A.O. BE DIR ECTED TO ALLOW THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION S OF RS.85,98,027/- OUT OF RS.1,80,99,968/- IN RESPECT O F PRESUMED UNACCOUNTED PRODUCTION AND PROFIT OR UNRECORDED SAL ES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS O F THE CASE UP HOLD THE ADDITIONS MADE ON PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES. YOUR APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.85,98,027/- BE DELETED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DELETING ADDITION OF RS.1,03,50,905/- IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS ON ASSUMPTION AND NOT BASED ON FINDING. YOUR APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE A DDITION OF RS.1,03,50,905/- BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT REQUESTS LEAVE TO ADD TO OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2.1. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) ACCEPTING THE RETURNED LOSS OF RS.38,75,670/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE BASIS OF THE INFOR MATION FROM THE CENTRAL ITA NOS.717&718/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND ITA NOS.728&729/AHD/09 (BY REVENUE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 3 - EXCISE DEPARTMENT, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REO PENED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED THE REQUISITE NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 03/04/20 07 SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN FILED ON 29/11/2004 MAY BE TREATED AS HAVING BEEN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT. THEREAF TER, A NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 10/07/2007 AND THE SAME WAS DULY SERV ED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ISSUED A DETAILED QUESTI ONNAIRE DATED 11/07/2007 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE RE QUISITE DETAILS. ON THE DATE OF HEARING, ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT AND THE MAT TER WAS ADJOURNED TO 06/08/2007 FURTHER, CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 22/10/20 07 AND THEREAFTER ALLOWED A FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS ON OR BEFORE 29/11/2007. IN RESPONSE THERETO, NOBODY APPEARED A ND NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE BEST ASSESSMENT U/S.144 R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT. WHILE FRA MING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,80,99,968/- ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AND INVESTMENT U/S.69C OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE SALES RECORDED BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT. THE AO MADE ADDIT ION OF RS.28,39,881/- ON ACCOUNT OF NET PROFIT ESTIMATED A ND ALSO MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED WITH REGARD TO UNSECURED LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,03,50,905/-. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. WHILE ALLOWING THE APP EAL, THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.28,39,881/-, HOWEVER, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,80,99,968/- WAS REDUCED TO RS.85,98,027/-. I N RESPECT OF THE ADDITION MADE QUA THE UNSECURED LOANS, LD.CIT(A) HE LD THAT THE CREDIT IS ITA NOS.717&718/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND ITA NOS.728&729/AHD/09 (BY REVENUE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 4 - PRIMA-FACIE EXPLAINED IN THE CASE OF NIRMALA S.GAND HI, ALPANA GANDHI, MANHATTON FINGROWTH LTD. AND FLEX PACK INDIA LTD. IN RESPECT OF MOTOROL ENTERPRISE LTD. AND MOTOROL SPECIALITIES OI L LTD. THE ISSUE WAS REMITTED TO THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF THE AVAILABI LITY OF GOODS/MATERIAL WITH THE SUPPLIER PARTIES AND IN CASE, THE GOODS WE RE FOUND TO BE AVAILABLE, IT WAS DIRECTED THE ADDITION WAS TO BE DELETED. 3. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS OF RS.38,75,670/-. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SH RI J.P.SHAH ARGUED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLO WING THE LOSS AND ESTIMATING THE PROFIT AT THE SAME TIME. HE SUBMITT ED THAT DUE TO NON- AVAILABILITY OF THE DETAILS IN THE FORM OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE TAKEN AWAY BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE LOSS CLAIMED. HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE DULY AUDITED BY THE AUDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE-CO MPANY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS AND AT THE SAME TIME ESTIMATION OF PROFIT IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SHRI K.C.MATHEWS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE ACCOUNT S. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE TAKEN VERY W ELL A CERTIFIED COPY FROM THE EXCISE OFFICIALS AND PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM. ITA NOS.717&718/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND ITA NOS.728&729/AHD/09 (BY REVENUE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 5 - 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) IN PARA 3.5 OF HIS ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED VARIOUS EX PENDITURE BUT NO DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED. EVEN AUDITOR PUT A REMARK THAT DURING EXCISE SEARCH ACCOUNTING AND STOCK RECORDS WERE SEIZED AND AUDIT WAS DONE IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. IT I S CLEAR THAT NO VERIFICATION WAS MADE EVEN BY THE AUDITOR, THEREFOR E APPELLANT CANNOT BE CLAIMED THAT ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT ANYTHING CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME, THE ONUS ON HIM TO PROVE WITH THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE. IN THIS CASE, LOSS HAS BEEN CLAIMED BUT IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM, NO EVIDENCE IS FURNISHED. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN T HAT IT WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE SINCE ALL THE RECORDS WERE SEIZ ED BY THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT. WE DO NOT FIND FORCE IN THESE A RGUMENTS AS THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BY THE AO TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DETAILS, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PR ODUCE THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY STEP TO TAKE THE CERTIFI ED COPIES FROM THE CENTRAL EXCISE DEPARTMENT OF THE RECORDS SEIZED. N O PANCHNAMA OF THE RECORDS SEIZED IS PLACED ON RECORD, THEREFORE IN TH E ABSENCE OF THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTI FIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS DISCUSSION, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REJECTED. ITA NOS.717&718/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND ITA NOS.728&729/AHD/09 (BY REVENUE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 6 - 5. COMING TO THE SECOND GROUND REGARDING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.85,98,027/- (OUT OF RS.1,80,99,968/-) , THE CONT ENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION O N ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF THE PROFIT AS WELL AS INVESTMENTS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASING THE MATERIAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF SA LES AND INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,80,99,968/- TREATING THE REMOVAL OF GOODS AS SALES AND ALSO TREATING THE SAM E AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,77,45,067 /- REPRESENTING THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT AND TAXING THE SAME U/S.69C OF THE ACT AND ON UNACCOUNTED SALES, HE ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT AT 2 % ADDING FURTHER AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,54,901/-. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A), HOWEVER, MODIFIED THE ADDITION BY FO LLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED CONCERN; NAMELY, M/S.MOTO ROL SPECIALITIES OIL LTD. FOR AY 2002-03 AND DIRECTED THE AO TO TAX THE GP @ 40% OF RS.1,77,45,067/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS NOT JUSTIFIED ON TWO COUNTS. FIRSTLY, THE UNRECORD ED SALES ALSO REPRESENTED UNRECORDED INVESTMENT AS PER REVENUE BUT THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT ROLL OVER INVESTMENT IS NOT CONSIDERED. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE IDENTICAL SITUATION, THE COOR DINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL (ITAT D BENCH) IN ITA NO.328/AHD/2009 F OR AY 2002-03 IN THE CASE OF MOTOROL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.V S. ITO V IDE ORDER DATED 23/03/2012 HAS TAKEN THE MARGIN @ 12.5% ON SUCH UNA CCOUNTED SALES. THE HONBLE ITT HAS FOLLOWED THE EARLIER DECISION R ENDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S.VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. REPORTED AT 58 ITD 528. ON THE CONTRARY, SR.DR ITA NOS.717&718/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND ITA NOS.728&729/AHD/09 (BY REVENUE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 7 - SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT AD MITTEDLY, IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S, THEREFORE THE AO WAS REQUIRED TO ESTIMATE THE PROFIT AND MADE ADDITI ON U/S.69C IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVIS O TO SECTION 69C MAKES IT CLEAR THAT SUCH UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE WHICH IS DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DE DUCTION UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME. 6. 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 FACTS WERE IDENTICAL AS WERE IN IT A NO.328/AHD/2009(SUPRA) IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE IN D ISPUTE. THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO.328/AHD/2009 HAS SUSTAIN ED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 12.5% MARGIN ON UNACCOUNTED SALES OF RS.5,18,608/-. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT IN ITS ORD ER DATED 23/03/2012. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AT PAR A 4.3 HAS REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S. MOTOROL SPECIALITY OIL LTD. PERTAINING TO AY 2002-03 AND ON THE BASIS OF T HE SAID ORDER, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ADOPTED THE RATE OF 40% AT THE GROSS PROFIT. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FU RNISH THE SALES BILL ALONG WITH OTHER BASIC RECORDS FOR VERIFICATION AS CALLED BY THE AO. THE AO HAS MADE ADDITIONS SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE PENAL TY ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA-II PENALT Y ORDER F.NO.V.CH.27(15)9/0A/AC/PREV./03 DATED 29/10/2004. IT IS ALSO ITA NOS.717&718/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND ITA NOS.728&729/AHD/09 (BY REVENUE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 8 - RECORDED BY THE AO THAT FROM PARA 28 & 30 OF THE PE NALTY ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT SHRI RINKI S.GANDHI, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS AGREED THAT GOODS HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PREMISES WITH OUT MAKING ENTRIES IN CENTRAL EXCISE RECORDS AND WITHOUT PAYING THE DU TY INVOLVED. NO MATERIAL IS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE THAT AN Y INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE AO TO FIND OUT WHETHER SUCH DETAILS OF SALES WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY SUMMONI NG THE RECORD FROM THE CENTRAL EXCISE AUTHORITIES. IT IS ALSO NOT CO MING OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT WHETHER THE AO HAS VERIFIED BASIS ON WHICH TH E LD.COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VADODARA-II PASSED PENALTY ORDER. S INCE THE CENTRAL EXCISE AND INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OPERATE IN TWO DIF FERENT FIELDS AND DIFFERENT SET OF DOCUMENTS ARE MAINTAINED FOR RECOR DING THE TRANSACTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND INCOME TAX, T HEREFORE THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE MADE FURTHER ENQUIRIES AND BASED HIS BEST JUDGEMENT ORDER ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ENQUIRY. IT CANNOT BE LOST SI GHT OF THE FACT THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENSES. UNDER THESE PECULIAR FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN TAKEN BY THE ITAT IN ITA NO.328/AHD/2009 FOR AY 200 2-03(SUPRA), WHEREIN THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH HAS TAKEN 12.5 % MARGIN ON UNACCOUNTED SALES. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO TAKE 12.5% MARGIN ON UNACCOUNTED SALES OF RS.1,77,45,067/- AND RECOMP UTE THE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS A LLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ITA NOS.717&718/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND ITA NOS.728&729/AHD/09 (BY REVENUE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 9 - 7. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.3, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND HAS BEEN WRONGLY RAISED, THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THIS GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 717/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2003-04 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.7 28/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2003-04. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RA ISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL:- 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .95,01,941/- OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT HE, HIMSELF HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF THE A.O. FOR REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS WHEN THE DETAIL S OF HUGE EXPENSES WERE NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY PRODUCTION OF PROPER BOOK S FO ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT OF RS.28,39,881/- OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE D ID NOT FURNISH DETAILS OF EXPENSES. MOREOVER APPELLANT HAD NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS TO PROVE THAT EXPENSES INCURRED WERE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. 3) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.1,03,50,905/- BEING UNSECURED LOAN, SINCE THE SO URCE OF INVESTMENT AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WERE NOT PRODUCE D. FURTHER, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTY AS REQUIRED U/S.68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS ALSO NOT PROVED. 4) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND OR ALTER THE ABOVE GROUNDS AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY. ITA NOS.717&718/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND ITA NOS.728&729/AHD/09 (BY REVENUE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 10 - 8.1 GROUND NOS.1 & 2 ARE INTERCONNECTED. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION MADE IN ITA NO.717/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2003-04 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, TAKING A CON SISTENT VIEW, WE HEREBY REJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 8.2. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITIO N OF RS.1,03,50,905/-. THE LD.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREAS LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPOR TED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT IN HIS ORD ER AT PARA 5.5 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 5.5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUN SEL AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED LOAN IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATION AND PAN OF THE PARTIES AND ALSO THE CR EDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS. IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE APPE LLANT SUBMITTED ACCOUNTS CONFIRMATIONS FROM PARIKH ENTERPRISE, ALPA NA GANDHI, MOTOROL ENTERPRISE, NIRMALA S.GANDHI, MOTOROL SPECI ALITY OILS LTD, MANHATTON FINGROWTH LTD. AND FLEXI PACK INDIA LTD. CONFIRMATION RECEIVED FROM ALL THESE SEVEN PARTIES BEAR THE COMPLETE ADDRESS AND PAN. THE DETAILS OF THE TRAN SACTION OR MONEY RECEIVED ARE MENTIONED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT. EXCEPT THE CASE OF MOTOROL ENTERPRISE, THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE AND THE DETAILS OF CHEQUE NO.DATE AND BANK ACCOUNT ETC. ARE ALSO MENTIONED. THEREFORE, THE CREDIT IS PRIMA FACIE EX PLAINED IN THE CASE OF NIRMALA GANDHI, ALPANA GANDHI, MANHATTON FI NGROWTH LTD, AND FLEX PACK INDIA LTD. IN THESE CASE THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT IN VIEW OF THE APEX COPURTS DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF ORISSA CORPORATION LTD. REPORTED IN 159 ITR WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT BY FURNISHING CONFIRMATION WITH PAN, PRIMARY ONUS I S DISCHARGED BY THE APPELLANT. ONUS THEREAFTER SHIFTS TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND PROVE THE CREDIT NON -GENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT ASK APPELLANT TO SUBMIT FU RTHER EVIDENCES ITA NOS.717&718/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND ITA NOS.728&729/AHD/09 (BY REVENUE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 11 - AND MAKE ADDITION ON NON-COMPLIANCE. SINCE PRIMARY ONUS IS DISCHARGED BY THE APPELLANT BY SUBMITTING CONFIRMAT ION WITH PAN, CREDIT CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED ON NON-SUBM ISSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE CREDIT IS TREATED AS EXPLAINED IN THESE FOUR CASES AND ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. 8.3. THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FINDING ON FACT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD .CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTE D. 8.4. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.728/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2003-04 IS DISMISSED. 9. LAST, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO .718/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2004-05 AND REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.729/ AHD/2009 FOR AY 2004-05. 9.1. IN ASSESSEES APPEAL (ITA NO.718/AHD/2009), TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DELETING ADDITION YU/S.68 OF RS.2,04,4 1,600/- IN RESPECT MATERIAL LOAN FROM MOTOROL SPECIALITY OILS LTD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT TH AT THE SAID TRANSACTION IS CONFIRMED BOTH BY THE LOANEE AND LOA N GIVING PARTIES. YOUR APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION BE DELETED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED A.O. ERRED IN IGNORING THE LOSS OF RS.6,60,78,803/-. THERE BEING NO PLAUSIBLE REASON ASSIGNED BY THE A.O . IN IGNORING THE LOSS RETURN BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NOS.717&718/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND ITA NOS.728&729/AHD/09 (BY REVENUE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 12 - YOUR APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUIT Y PRAYS HERE BY TO DIRECT THE A.O. TO ASSESS THE LOSS RETURNED BY YOUR APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT REQUESTS LEAVE TO ADD TO OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 9.2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST GROUND HAS BEEN WRONGLY RAISED, THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THIS GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 9.3 REGARDING GROUND NO.2, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AS WERE IN ASSESSEES APPEA L IN ITA NO.717/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2003-04(SUPRA), SINCE THER E IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, FOR THE S AME REASONING, WE HEREBY REJECT THIS GROUND RAISED IN ASSESSEES AP PEAL FOR AY 2004-05. AS A RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.718/AHD/20 09 FOR AY 2004-05 IS DISMISSED. 9.4. IN REVENUES APPEAL (ITA NO.729/AHD/2009), THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.4,75,00,000/- BEING INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL, O VER LOOKING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SUBSCRIBERS FOR THE INCREA SE IN SHARE CAPITAL. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.59,93,172/- BEING UNSECURED LOAN, SINCE THE SOUR CE OF INVESTMENT AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY ADDUCING EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER. ITA NOS.717&718/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND ITA NOS.728&729/AHD/09 (BY REVENUE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 13 - MOREOVER, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR AS REQU IRED U/S.68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS ALSO NOT PROVED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND OR ALTER THE ABOVE GROUNDS AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY. RELIEF CLAIMED IN APPEAL THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE AFORESAID GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER BE RESTORED. 9.5. GROUND NOS.1 & 2 ARE INTER-CONNECTED. THE DR SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ALL THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM WAS PLACED ON RECORD. 9.6. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSING T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDING ON FACT IN PARA 3.5 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL A ND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED LOAN IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATION AND PAN OF THE PARTIES AND ALSO THE CR EDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ADDED I NCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS.4.75 CRORES. IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED ACCOUNTS CONFIRMATIONS FROM ALPANA GANDHI, NIRMALA S.GANDHI, MOTOROL SPECIALITY OILS L TD, MANHATTON FINGROWTH LTD., FLEXI PACK INDIA LTD AND MOTOROL LUBRICANT P.LTD. CONFIRMATION RECEIVED FROM ALL TH ESE PARTIES BEAR THE COMPLETE ADDRESS AND PAN. AS REGARDS INCR EASE IN SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.4.75 CRORES THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED T HAT THE INCREASE IS ON ACCOUNT OF RS.3 CRORE CREDITED IN THE NAME OF MOTOROL LUBRICANTS P.LTD. BY DEBITING MOTOROL BRAND ACCOUNT THROUGH ITA NOS.717&718/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND ITA NOS.728&729/AHD/09 (BY REVENUE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 14 - JOURNAL ENTRY. IT IS CONFIRMED BY BOTH THE PARTIES ON PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT THERE WAS NO FINANCIAL IMPLICATION OF THIS ENTRY SINCE SOURCE OF CAPITAL WAS DEBIT ENTRY OF MOTOROL BRAND ACCOUNT. THE SAME IS REVERSED NEXT YEAR SINCE THE PROPOSAL W AS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE SHARE HOLDERS OF THE SAID COMPANY. SINCE THE INCREASE IN CAPITAL IS NOT BY WAY OF RECEIPT OF FUN D BUT BY WAY OF JOURNAL ENTRY REVERSED NEXT YEAR, THERE IS NO QUEST ION OF SOURCE OF THIS CREDIT. SINCE BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT TH ESE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES HAVE BEEN REVERSED NEXT YEAR, THE SAME CANN OT BE ADDED U/S.68 AS NOTHING WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO VERIFY FROM THE AP PELLANTS RECORD FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AS WELL AS FROM THE RECORDS OF MOT OROL LUBRICANTS P.LTD. WHETHER THE ENTRY OF RS.3 CRORE IS REVERSED OR NOT. IF THE ENTRIES ARE REVERSED, THE ADDITION IS DELETED SINCE NO MONEY WAS RECEIVED. IF THE ENTRY IS STILL THERE NEXT YEAR TH EN THERE WILL BE A CASE OF TRANSFER OF MOTOROL BRAND SUBJECT TO CAPITA L GAIN TAX FOR WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY TAKE NECESSARY ACTI ON. IN ANY SITUATION ADDITION U/S.68 WILL NOT SURVIVE. AS REGARDS OTHER ADDITION OF RS.1.75 CRORES TO SHAR E CAPITAL ACCOUNT, THE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGE 12 OF TH E PAPER BOOK AS PER WHICH OPENING BALANCE AS PER SHARE APPLICATION ACCOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED TO SHARE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. APART FROM T HIS, RS.26,34,000/- WERE RECEIVED FROM FLEXI PACK INDIA LTD. AND RS.58.75 LACS WERE RECEIVED FROM MANHATTAN FINGROWT H LTD. THESE AMOUNTS WERE EITHER RECEIVED BY CHEQUE OR OUT OF OPENING BALANCE TRANSFERRED TO SHARE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. SINC E THESE ACCOUNTS ARE CONFIRMED BY THE PARTIES WITH THEIR PAN, THE SA ME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED UNEXPLAINED U/S.68. IN THIS CASE THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT IN VIEW OF THE APEX COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF ORISSA CORPORATION LTD. REPORTED IN 159 ITR WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT BY FURNISHING CONFIRMATION WITH PAN, PRIMARY ONUS I S DISCHARGED BY THE APPELLANT. ONUS THEREAFTER SHIFTS TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO MAKE FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND PROVE THE CREDIT NON -GENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT ASK APPELLANT TO SUBMIT FU RTHER EVIDENCES AND MAKE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NON-COMPLIANCE. SI NCE PRIMARY ONUS IS DISCHARGED BY THE APPELLANT BY SUBMITTING C ONFIRMATION WITH PAN, CREDIT CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED O N NON- ITA NOS.717&718/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND ITA NOS.728&729/AHD/09 (BY REVENUE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 15 - SUBMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE CREDIT IS TREATED AS EXPLAINED IN THESE CASES AND ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. AS REGARDS LOAN OF RS.59,93,172/-, THE SAME IS BASI CALLY FROM MOTOROLA SPECIALITY OIL LTD. RS.1,41,24,172/- AS RA W MATERIAL LOAN AND RS.1 LAC TAKEN FROM ALPANA GANDHI. ALL OTHER A CCOUNTS HAD ONLY REPAYMENTS DURING THE YEAR. THE LOAN FROM ALP ANA GANDHI IS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE AND SHE HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME T HEREFORE CREDIT IN HER NAME IS EXPLAINED. AS REGARDS MOTORO LA SPECIALITIES OIL LTD., SIMILAR ISSUE WAS THERE IN A.Y. 2003-04 W HEREIN A DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UND ER:- SIMILARLY IN THE CASE MOTOROLA SPECIALITIES OIL LT D. THERE IS JOURNAL ENTRY FOR RAW MATERIAL LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS .20,41,600/-. BOTH THE CONCERNS ARE RELATED COMPANIES AND PROBABL Y ASSESSED IN THE SAME RANGE, I.E. RANGE-4, BARODA. THOUGH BO TH THE PARTIES HAVE CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS, THE QUESTI ON HERE IS WHETHER THESE PARTIES HAD THAT MUCH MATERIAL/STOCK WITH THEM WHILE SELLING OR LOANING THE SAID MATERIAL TO THE A PPELLANT. THIS IS ALL THE MORE RELEVANT SINCE NO PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE AMOUNT IS TRANSFERRED IN THE CASE OF MOTOROL ENTERPRISES LTD. TO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.80 LACS. SINCE THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE OF STOCK/ GOODS, VERIFICATION AS TO THE SOURCE THEREOF IS NECESSARY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DONE THIS VERIFICATION IN REMAND RE PORT HENCE IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE SUPPLYING PARTIES HAD SUFFICI ENT STOCK OF GOODS WITH THEM OR NOT. IF THEY HAD SUFFICIENT GOO DS IN THEIR STOCK, THEN THESE ENTRIES CONFIRMED BY THESE PARTIE S WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY ADDITION SINCE SOURCE OF LOAN/MATERIAL IS EX PLAINED. IF THESE PARTIES ARE FOUND TO HAVE NO STOCK ON THE GIV EN DATES, THE CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOK OF APPELLANT WILL BECO ME UNEXPLAINED. CONSIDERING THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE AVAILABILITY OF GOODS/MATERIAL WITH T HE SUPPLIER PARTIES ON THE DAY OF LOAN AND IF THE SAME ARE FOUN D TO BE AVAILABLE, ADDITION IS DELETED. IN CASE ASSESSING OFFICER COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE PARTIES DID NOT HAVE STOC K OF MATERIAL THEN ADDITION IS CONFIRMED. THE RATIONALE OF DECIS ION OF THE CASE OF ORISSA CORPORATION WILL NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF MATERIAL SINCE ITA NOS.717&718/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND ITA NOS.728&729/AHD/09 (BY REVENUE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 16 - GENERAL CREDITWORTHINESS BY PROVIDING CONFIRMATION WITH PAN WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE SOURCE. SINCE, THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL, ONLY WITH DIFFERENCE IN QUANTUM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE AFORESA ID ORDER IN RESPECT OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN OF RAW MATERIAL IN THE NA ME OF MOTOROL SPECIALITY OILS LTD. THIS YEAR ALSO. 9.7. THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FINDING ON FACT, THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD.CIT (A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, BOTH THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS REVE NUES APPEAL ARE REJECTED. AS A RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA N O.729/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2004-05 IS DISMISSED. 10. WE SUMMARIZE THE RESULT AS UNDER: (1) ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.717/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2003-04 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. (2) ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.718/AHD/2009 FOR AY 200 4-05 IS DISMISSED. (3) REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.728/AHD/2009 FOR AY 2003 -04 IS DISMISSED. (4) REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.729/AHD/2009 FOR A Y 2004-05 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ($ %&) ! ! ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 08/01/2014 0.., '.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NOS.717&718/AHD/2009 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 AND ITA NOS.728&729/AHD/09 (BY REVENUE) FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 17 - - ( 1&2 32,& - ( 1&2 32,& - ( 1&2 32,& - ( 1&2 32,&/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 45 / THE APPELLANT 2. 1645 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ## & $7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. $7() / THE CIT(A)-III, BARODA 5. 2'%8 1& , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 89 :' / GUARD FILE. -$ -$ -$ -$ / BY ORDER, 62& 1& //TRUE COPY// ; ;; ;/ // / #< #< #< #< ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION ..2.1.14(DICTATION-PAD 25 PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 6.1.14 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 FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.8/1/14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8/1/14 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