Shree Maruti Pole Industries, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(2), Baroda

ITA 913/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0495 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L CHANDEL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Depreciation; Source of fund; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 142(1); 133(6); 69; 63; 144; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM, & SHRI MANISH BORAD , AM. ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI MARUTI POLE INDUSTRIES, AT & PO: MASAR, TAL. PADRA, DIST. BARODA. VS. ITO, WARD-3(2), BARODA. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN ABBFS 8324D APPELLANT BY SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. L. CHANDEL, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 9/9/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20/9/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL FOR ASST. YEAR 2006-07 A GAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, BARODA, DATED 22.12.2010, V IDE APPEAL NO.CAB/II-322/08-09. ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE IT A CT, 1961 WAS FRAMED ON 18/12/2008 BY ITO WARD-3(2), BARODA. ASSE SSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 12.3,2010 IN WHICH HE HAD A CCEPTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAD CATEGORICALLY ACCEPTED THE NET PROFIT DISCL OSED BY THE APPELLANT FIRM. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT AT 8% AND FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PROFIT ESTIMATI ON MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 2 DISREGARDING THE REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS WITHOUT A TTENDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPLICANT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE A DDITION OF RS.5,68,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED THE CASH CREDITS AS GENUINE IN THE REMAND REPORT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE A DDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISAL LOWANCE U/S 41 (1) OF THE ACT. 6. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISAL LOWANCE U/S 41 (1) IN RESPECT OF THE CREDITORS : SURESHCHANDRA HIRALAL MALI- RS.48200 RACHODLAL S PARMAR - RS.39300 DESPITE CONFIRMATION FILED BY HIM. 7. THE APPELLANT FIRM CRAVES, LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR A MEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE BEING A P ARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING CEMENT POL ES FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 20/11/2006 DECLARING RS.NIL ALONG WIT H AUDIT REPORT U/S 44AB IN FORM NO.3CB AND 3CD WITH FINANCIAL STATEMEN TS. CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICES U/S 14 3(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND DULY SERVED. NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND AS A RESULT ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT AT RS.4 7,81,620/- AFTER ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT @ 8% AT RS.10,79,683/-, A DDITION U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH CREDIT AT RS.28,21,022/ -, DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AT RS.90,730/- AND ADDITION U/S 69 FOR UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT ON ACCONT OF LIABILITIES AT RS.7,90,180/ -. ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 3 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CI T(A) WHO CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. REMAND REPORT DATED 8.2.2010 WAS PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE L D. CIT(A) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE W AS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 7 GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT THEY CA N BE SUMMARIZED IN THREE GROUNDS ASSAILING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) (I) AGAINST REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE @ 8 % , (II) SUSTAINING ADDITION U/S 68 AT RS.5,68,000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT AND (III) CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT AT RS.87,500/-. 5. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT WHEN LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION WAS CARRIED OUT BY LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER WHO CALLED FOR ALL NECESSARY INFORMATION WHICH WERE DUL Y COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORT IS SPEAKING IN ALL ASPECTS AND IF ONE TAKES THE OVERALL VIEW OF THE REMAND REPORT, THREE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A ), NEED TO BE DELETED, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, GAVE COMPLETE D ETAILS INCLUDING BANK ACCOUNT AND IDENTITIES OF CASH CREDITORS. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THROUGH THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE GROUNDS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 4 (I) AGAINST REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY APPLYI NG NET PROFIT RATE @ 8%; (II) SUSTAINING ADDITION U/S 68 AT RS.5,68,000/- TO WARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT; & (III) CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT AT RS.87,500/-. (IV) DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. 8. WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN WHEN AUD ITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND OTHER NECESSARY DETAILS WERE AVAILAB LE WITH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS CAN BE VIEWED FROM THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT LD. CIT(A) CALLED FO R REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ADDITION S MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. IT WILL BE RELEVANT HERE TO PRODUCE THE REMAND REPORT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE ALL THE GROUNDS RAIS ED BY ASSESSEE :- OFFICE OF TH INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)& 3(1) 3 RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA NO. BRD./WD.3(L) &3(2)/09-10 DT 8/12-03-2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II BARODA (SUBMITTED THROUGH PROPER CHANNE L) MADAM, SUB; APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SHRI MARUTI POLE INDUSTRIES - A.Y. 2006-07- APPEAL NO. CAB/LL-322/08- 09 - : REPORT REGARDING - REF; YOUR LETTER NO. BRD/C!T(A)-LL/REM.REP/2009- 10, DT.1.12.2009 KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE. MY POINT-WISE REPORT ON THE SUBMISSION/EVIDENCE PRODU CED BY THE ASSESSEE IS .SUBMITTED HEREUNDER; 2.1 FIRST OF ALL ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NOW PRODUCED BEFO RE YOUR HONOUR MAY NOT BE ALLOWED AS THE SAME WERE, NOT PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INSPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, . ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 5 3 AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO PRESENT HIS CASE BUT NON-ATTENDANCE AND NON-PRODUCTION OF DETAILS , COMPELLED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT EX-PARTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE NOR OTHER EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF SOURCES OF INCOME, THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE .HAD BEEN REJECTED U/S 145(3) OF THE IT ACT ESTIMATING NE T PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AT 8% .OF TOTAL TURNOVER I.E. RS.10,79,683/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODU CED AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR VERIFICATION. THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED ARE TASTE CHECKED. THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR OF BUSINESS THEREFORE GP/NP OF EARLIER YEARS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPARISON. DURING THE YEAR THE GP IS SHOWN AT RS .19,03,869/- WHICH WORKS OUT TO 13.80%. 4 REGARDING UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 63 OF THE IT ACT, LETTERS TO THE DEPOSITORS HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND FROM THE DATE MADE AVAILABLE, THE CASE-WISE REPORT IS SUBMITTED AS UNDER; SL. NO. NAME OF THE DEPOSITORS AMOUNT INTRODUCED IN RS. MODE OF TRANSACTION DOCUMENT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PAPER BOOK REMARKS 1 CHANDRESH R. BHADRESH 4,64,000 DD NO.548481, 507712,674 647 RS.64,000, RS. 1 LAC, & RS.3 LAKH CONFIRMATION & LEDGER ACCOUNT PAN AKTPB5917G 'OP. BAL. RS. 2,75,000/- CREDIT DURING THE YEAR BY DD RS. 4,64,000/- ON THREE DATES. THE DEPOSITOR HAS FURNISHED CONFIRMATION, BANK ACCOUNT COPY AND FOR LAND HOLDING 8A/ 7- 12COPIES.ON VERIFICATION THEREOF, THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS & CREDIT WORTHINESS SATISFIED.. 2 JAYANTI I. BHADRESH 430000 DD NO.675645 RS.2 LACS DD RS.2,30,00 0 SBS CONFIRMATION & LEDGER ACCOUNT OPENING BALANCE RS 1,00,000 AND ADDITION MADE; BY DD OF RS. 2,LAC AND 2.30 LAC DURING THE YEAR. CONFIRMATION FROM DEPOSITOR IS FILED. THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT IS WITHDRAWN FROM THE ANOTHER FIRM M/S MAHAVIR CONSTRUCTION ON RAJKOT AND SHETH CONSTRUCTION CO. DBORAJI FROM WHERE OUT OF CREDIT BALANCE, THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND DEPOSITED WITH THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO FILED LAND HOLDING UTTARA, DENA BANK ACCOUNT COPIES. ON VERIFICATION THEREOF, THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS & CREDIT WORTHINESS SATISFIED 3 LALITBHAI R BHADRESH 50000 CHEQUE 222454 CONFIRMATION & LEDGER ACCOUNT PAN AEBPB6609M -THE DEPOSITOR IS ASSESSED TO ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 6 SBS RS.50000 TAX WITH ITO 10(2) AHMEDABAD. THE DEPOSITOR HAS FIFED, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COPY OF RETURN FILED, LAND HOLDING DOCUMENTS I.E. 8A/7--12 COPIES, BANK OF SAURASHTRA ACCOUNT COPY. IS DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN MADE BY. CHEQUES. ON VERIFICATION THEREOF; THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS & CREDIT WORTHINESS IS PROVED. 4 MANILAL L.BHADRESH OLDBAL OLD BALANACE NO COMMENT 5 MOHANLAL L. BHADRESH -OF BAL NO COMMENT 6 MUKESHBHAI SOLANKI 98,600 DD NO.547500 DENA BANK RS.48000/- DD NO.127743 UBI RS.49800 CONFIRMATION & LEDGER ACCOUNT PAN BFFPS5115 D THE DEPOSITOR IS ASSESSED TO TAX. CONFIRMATION COPY OF DENA BANK ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN FILED ON VERIFICATION THEREOF THE IDENTITY. GENUINENESS & CREDIT WORTHINESS SATISFIED.. 7 PITHABHAI VASRA 200000 DD DENA CONFIRMATION & BANK RS.2 LACS NO.74745 RECEIVED COPIES OF DENABANK ACCOUNT, LAND HOLDING DOCUMENTS 8A/7- 12 UTTARA HAVE BEEN FILED. ON VERIFICATION THEREOF THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS & CREDITWORTHINESS IS SATISFIED. 8 PUSHPABEN B BHADRESH 750000 DD NO.74798, DENA BANK CONFIRMATION & LEDGER ACCOUNT PAN AJBPB9444P THE DEPOSITOR IS ASSESSED TO TAX. THERE IS OPENING BALANCE OF RS.3,50,000 AND ADDITION IS MADE BY DD SHE HAS WITHDRAWN THE AMOUNT FROM THE MAHAVIR CONSTRUCTION RAJKOT WHERE THERE CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.10.80 LACS ON VERIFICATION THEREOF THE IDENTITY GENUINENESS & CREDIT WORTHINESS SATISFIED. 9 RAMESHBHAI BHADRESHA 50000 CHEQUE NO.224584 CONFIRMATION & LEDGER ACCOUNT PAN AEBPB 6608L THE DEPOSITOR IS ASSESSED TO TAX WITH ITO WD 10(4) AHMEDABAD. THE DEPOSITOR HAS FILED BANK ACCOUNT COPY AND CONFIRMED THE DEPOSITS. THE TRANSACTION IS FOUND GENUINE. ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 7 10 RATILAL N BHADRESHA NO DIFF 11 SHANTILAL VAJIBHAI 70000 CHEQUE NO.622481 BOB RS.70,000 CONFIRMATION & LEDGER ACCOUNT THE DEPOSITOR HAS FURNISHED BANK ACCOUNT COPY IN SUPPORT OF CHEQUE ISSUED. THE TRANSACTION BY BANK CHEQUE, IT IS ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. 12 SUN CARTING PADRA 59622 PURCHASE MATERIAL BAL. LEDGER ACCOUNT ENCLOSED COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT FILED SUN CARTING IT IS CREDITOR FOR SERVICES COPY OF CONTRA ACCOUNT IS FILED. 13 ALPESH SOLANKI 49000 DD UBI NO.01747 DT.30.1.08 CONFIRMATION, LEDGER ACCOUNT NO. PAN THE DEPOSITOR HAS RESPONDED 133(6) LETTER AND HE HAS FURNISHED COPY OF UNION BANK DHORAJI FROM WHERE DD HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE. 14 AMRUTLAL LALJIBHAI BHADRESHA 200000 DD DENA BANK NO.5650 RS.2 LACS CONFIRMATION, LEDGER ACCOUNT CONFIRMATION FROM THE DEPOSITOR IS RECEIVED AND HAS FURNISHED LAND HOLDING DOCUMENTS 8-A/7-12 WHICH IS IN THE JOINT NAME WITH RAMESHBHAI. THE DEPOSITOR IS AGRICULTURIST. THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE. 15 AMRUTLAL V. GOHEL 150000 DD NO.507713 SBS RS.3.50 LACS & DD NO.177987 BOB RS. 2 LACS LEDGER ACCOUNT & CONFIRMATION FILED PAN ABUPG9635Q THE DEPOSITOR IS ASSESSED TO TAX AND HAS COMPLIED TO THE LETTER U/S 133(6) AND STATED THAT THE AMOUNT IS RECEIVED BY BACK UPTO 7.11.09 BY DD COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT SHOWING WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED. THE DEPOSIT IS GENUINE 16 BHANUPRASAD M JOSHI 200000 DD NO.263263 DENA BANK RS.2 LAC CONFIRMATION & LEDGER ACCOUNT PAN AAAAJ 1443R IN COMPLIANCE TO THE LETTER BY THIS OFFICE, THE DEPOSITOR HAS FILED SB ACCOUNT OF DENABANK AND ALSO STATED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED THE AMOUNT ON RETIREMENT FROM THE COMPANY WHICH IS CREDITED AT THE BANK ACCOUNT BY CHEQUE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE. 17 BHUPATBHAI SOLANKI 49800 DD NO.022747 UBI RS.49800 CONFIRMATION & LEDGER ACCOUNT THE DEPOSITOR HAS FILED CONFIRMATION AND COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT. HE HAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 8 WAS WITHDRAWN FROM BANK ACCOUNT RS.50,000 ON 28.1.06 AND GIVEN CASH OF RS.49800 TO THE FIRM AND THE SAID AMOUNT IS RECEIVED BACK BY HIM ON 3.4.07. THE DEPOSIT IS GENUINE. 3 DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION RS. 90730- FACTORY BLDG. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS . 53,579 10% THEREOF RS. 5358 IS DISALLOWED, IN THIS CONNECTION THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED FACTORY BUILDING LEDGER ACCOUNT BUT HAS FILED ONLY ONE BILL COPY OF RS. 729 FOR VERIFICATION .FOR REST OF THE ADDITION NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCES ARE PRODUCED. MACHINERY ; ADDITION OF RS. 5,40,330 @ 15% RS. S537 2/- = 90730. THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BILLS & SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED/PRODUCED BILLS OF RS. 2,90,183 FOR VERIFICATION. FOR REST OF THE A MOUNT I.E. RS. 2,50,147 NO SUPPORTING BILLS ARE PRODUCED.. 4. CURRENT LIABILITIES: THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUND RY CREDITORS UNDER THE HEAD CURRENT LIABILITIES. LETTERS TO THE CREDITORS HAVE BEEN ISS UED AND IN THE FOLLOWING CASES REPLIES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. 1. AMBICA STEEL ; RS. 18,700 NATURE OF TRANSACTION ; CONFIRMATION IS RECEIVED, . ASSESSED TO TAX AT ABNXPP3055C, 2 BINANI CEMENT LTD.; RS. 34328 NATURE OF TRANSACTION; MATERIAL PURCHASE, CONFIRMATION & COPY OF ACCOUNT IS FURNISHED. 3 D.P. WIRE PVT.LTD., RS. 1,54,036; TRANSACTION -MATERIAL PURCHASE. CONFIRMATION IS RECEIVED PAH AABCD2393P ASSESSED AT 6(2) BOMBAY. 4 KRISHNA SALES RS. 1,49,800; MATERIAL PURCHASE - LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY BY KRISHNA SALE IS FILED. 5. PRESTRESS WIRE INDS. RS 3,27,932 ASSESSED TO TAX AT PAN AAAFP560/C LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY IN RESPONSE TO LETTER U/S 133(6) IS FURN ISHED. PRESTRESS WIRE IND. 3,27,932 6. RANCHHODLAL S PARMAR RS 48,200; ON CROSS VERIFICAT ION, ONE LETTER IS FILED STATING THAT THE AMOUNT IS OUTSTANDING. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY BUT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FILED 7. RATLAM WIRE PVT.ITD. RS, 8000; TRANSACTION MATERIAL PURCHASE. ASSESSEE TO TAX PAN AABCR8178G COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT IS FILED. IT IS RUNN ING ACCOUNT, 8. MORAR STONE SUPPLIER RS 15,875; MATERIAL PURCHASE. CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT IS FILED. ASSESSED TO TX AT PAN AADFM2064R. 9. SURESH HIRALAL MALI RS 39,300; SIMPLE LETTER IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT NO SUPPORTING BILLS OR WORK DONE IS FURNISHED TILL DATE. ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 9 10 SUN TRANSPORT RS -5991 IT IS RUNNING ACCO UNT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS, LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY IS FILED. SUBMITTED, YOURS FAITHFULLY, INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2} BARODA. 9. NOW WE PROCEED AHEAD TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS I N THE LIGHT OF REMAND REPORT DATED 8/12-03-2010 TAKING THE FIRST G ROUND WHEREIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED AND PROFIT WAS ESTIM ATED @ 8%. LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION FOR ESTIMATION OF NET PFOTIT @ 8% BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 2.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARN ED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS CASE OR DER U/S. 144 OF THE INCC;NE-T6X ACT HAS BEEN PASSED AS THERE WAS SUSTAINED NON-COMPLIAN CE ON- THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE AP PELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS CAR R YING OUT WORKS AT DIFFERENCE PLACES AND THEREFORE T HERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. THIS CONTENTION HAS TO BE REJECTED AT THE OUT SET. THE APPELLANT'S CARRYING O UT THE BUSINESS AT DIFFERENCE PLACES CANNOT BE A JUSTIFICATION OF NON-COMPLIANCE. BECAUS E CARRYING OF BUSINESS IS SINE QUANON FOR FILING OF RETURN AND COMPLIANCE TO THE S TATUTORY NOTICES. THE PRACTICE OF BUSINESS CANNOT BE A REASON FOR NON-COMPLIANCE. MOR EOVER, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FIRST NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 20.08.2 007 AND LAST NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 06.11.2008 SPREADING OVER MORE THAN A YEAR. AND DURING THE PERIOD OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR THE APPELLANT COULD NOT APPEAR EVEN ONCE B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE IT IS HELD THAT O RDER U/S. 144 HAS BEEN PASSED CORRECTLY. HAVING SAID THAT, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED DUR ING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SUCCESSOR ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURNISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. COMING TO THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST ESTIMA TION OF PROFIT AT 8%, THE APPELLANT'S OBJECTION HAS BEEN NOTED AS ABOVE. DURING THE REMAN D PROCEEDING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER , THERE ARE SEVERAL ISSUES WHICH JUSTIFIED REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE APPELL ANT HAD NOT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AND BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 HAS BEEN UPHELD AS PROPER. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS THERE ARE SEVERAL ENTRIES IN THE BOOK S WERE NOT FOUND RELIABLE. IT HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HE REMAND REPORT THAT IN RESPECT OF ADDITION TO FACTORY BUILDING THAT THE ENTRIES IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT SUPPORTED ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 10 BY THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF ADDITION TO PLANT AND MACHINERY AMOUNTING TO RS.5,40,330/- DURING THE YEA R, ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,50,147 HAS NOT SUPPORTED BY BILLS A ND VOUCHERS. EVEN DURING THE REMAND REPORT THERE WERE NOT PRODUCED. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF CURRENT LIABILITIES NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT OF RS.48,2 00/- IN THE NAME OF RANCHHODLA! S. PARMAR, FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS,39,300/- IN THE NAME OF SURESH HIRALAL MALI WERE PRODUCED EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS. COPIES OF BILLS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY FILED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE BEFOR E THE UNDERSIGNED SUBSEQUENT TO REMAND REPORT. HOWEVER, APART FROM FACTS THESE BILL S AND VOUCHERS CANNOT BE ADMITTED AS THERE WERE NEITHER FILED DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND THERE I S NO JUSTIFICATION OFFERED FOR THE SAME. NO RESPECTABILITY IS ATTACHED TO THESE VOUC HERS FILED AT THIS STAGE PARTICULARLY WHEN PAYMENTS ARE PAID IN CASH IN RESPECT OF THESE BILLS. LOOKING INTO THESE FACTS IT IS TO BE HELD THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT RELIAB LE AND THEREFORE REJECTION OF THE SAME IS UPHELD. SIMILARLY, ESTIMATING THE NET PROFI T @ 8% IS ALSO AS PROPER ON THE FACTS AND THE CASE.THE FIRST GROUND IS THEREFO RE REJECTED. 10. WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED AUDITED B OOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR VERIFIC ATION AND THE SAME WERE TEST CHECKED. ASSESSMENT BEING OF THE FIR ST YEAR THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF GP/NP RATE OF EARLIER YEARS FOR T HE PURPOSE OF COMPARISON AND GP FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS SHO WN AT RS.13.80%. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THERE IS NO MAJO R DEFECT HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT AND A CLEAR INDICATION IS AVAILABLE THAT ASSESSEES BOOKS OF AC COUNT ARE AUDITED, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WERE AVAILABLE FOR VERIFICATIO N, NO ADVERSE OBSERVATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AUDITORS AND NO DE FECT HAS BEEN POINTED. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT LD. AS SESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 1 45(3) OF THE ACT AND ESTIMATING THE PROFIT @ 8% AND FURTHER BEING CONFIR MED BY LD. CIT(A). WE DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.10,79,683/- B EING 8% OF RS.1,34,96,043/-. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 11 11. NOW WE TAKE UP THE GROUND RELATING TO ADDITION U/S 68 AT RS.5,68,000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT SUSTA INED BY LD. CIT(A). 12. LD. AR RELIED HEAVILY ON THE REMAND REPORT OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH CLARIFIES THE FACTS. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS .5,68,000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT H AS BEEN SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING PARTIES :- 1. PITHABHAI VASRA RS.2,00,000/- 2. SHANTILAL VAJIBHAI RS. 70,000/- 3. ALPHESH SOLANKI RS. 49,000/- 4. AMRUTLAL LALJIBHAI BHADRESHA RS.2,00,000/- 5. BHUPATBHAI SOLANKI RS. 49,000/- ------------------- ----------- RS.5,68,000/- ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 12 15. FURTHER ON EXAMINING THE REMAND REPORT, WE FIND WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE 5 CASH CREDITORS THAT LD. ASSESSING OF FICER HAS GIVEN SPECIFIC FINDING IN RELATION TO EACH OF THEM. THE O BSERVATIONS OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ARE REPRODUCED BELOW :- SL. NO. NAME OF THE DEPOSITORS AMOUNT INTRODUCED IN RS. MODE OF TRANSACTION DOCUMENT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PAPER BOOK REMARKS 1 PITHABHAI VASRA 200000 DD DENA CONFIRMATION & BANK RS.2 LACS NO.74745 RECEIVED COPIES OF DENABANK ACCOUNT, LAND HOLDING DOCUMENTS 8A/7- 12 UTTARA HAVE BEEN FILED. ON VERIFICATION THEREOF THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS & CREDITWORTHINESS IS SATISFIED. 2. SHANTILAL VAJIBHAI 70000 CHEQUE NO.622481 BOB RS.70,000 CONFIRMATION & LEDGER ACCOUNT THE DEPOSITOR HAS FURNISHED BANK ACCOUNT COPY IN SUPPORT OF CHEQUE ISSUED. THE TRANSACTION BY BANK CHEQUE, IT IS ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. 3. ALPESH SOLANKI 49000 DD UBI NO.01747 DT.30.1.08 CONFIRMATION, LEDGER ACCOUNT NO. PAN THE DEPOSITOR HAS RESPONDED 133(6) LETTER AND HE HAS FURNISHED COPY OF UNION BANK DHORAJI FROM WHERE DD HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE. 4. AMRUTLAL LALJIBHAI BHADRESHA 200000 DD DENA BANK NO.5650 RS.2 LACS CONFIRMATION, LEDGER ACCOUNT CONFIRMATION FROM THE DEPOSITOR IS RECEIVED AND HAS FURNISHED LAND HOLDING DOCUMENTS 8-A/7-12 WHICH IS IN THE JOINT NAME WITH RAMESHBHAI. THE DEPOSITOR IS AGRICULTURIST. THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE. 5. BHUPATBHAI SOLANKI 49800 DD NO.022747 UBI RS.49800 CONFIRMATION & LEDGER ACCOUNT THE DEPOSITOR HAS FILED CONFIRMATION AND COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT. HE HAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM BANK ACCOUNT RS.50,000 ON 28.1.06 AND GIVEN CASH OF RS.49800 TO THE FIRM AND THE SAID AMOUNT IS RECEIVED BACK BY HIM ON 3.4.07. THE DEPOSIT IS GENUINE. ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 13 16. FROM GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF LD . ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS AMPLY PROVED THAT ALL THE IMPUGNED TR ANSACTIONS OF CASH CREDITS ARE DULY EXPLAINED AND IDENTITY, GENUINENES S AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF EACH OF THEM ARE PROVED IN THE FORM OF BANK ACCOUNT, CONFIRMATIONS, REPLY OF CASH CREDITORS U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT IN SOME CASES, CONFIRMATION LETERS. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT FOR RS.5,68,000/- NEEDS TO BE DELETED. WE DO SO. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ALLOWED. 17. NEXT WE TAKE UP THE GROUND RELATING TO DISALLOW ANCE U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT AT RS. 87,500/-. 18. LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT TOWARDS SUNDRY CREDITORS NAMELY SURESHCHANDRA HIRA LAL MALI AT RS.48,200/- AND RANCHODLAL S. PARMAR AT RS.39,300/- . WE OBSERVE THAT DURING THE PROCESSING OF PREPARING REMAND REPO RT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED BOTH THE SUNDRY CREDITORS. IN RESP ECT OF RANCHODLAL S. PARMAR LEDGER ACCOUNT WAS FURNISHED AND ON CROSS VERIFICATION ONE LETTER WAS RECEIVED FROM RANCHODLAL S. PARMAR THAT THE AMOUNT IS OUTSTANDING FOR RS.39,300/-. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO SUNDRY CREDITOR SURESHCHANDRA HIRALAL MALI BALANCE OF RS.48,200/-, ASSESSEE HAS ASSERTED THAT THIS IMPUGNED LIABILITY WAS ACTUALLY OUTSTANDING AS AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO SATISFY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITH REGARD TO ALL OT HER SUNDRY CREDITORS IN RESPECT OF WHICH ADDITION U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT WAS MADE. FURTHER WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONT ROVERT THE ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 14 SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR AS WELL AS THE VIEWS EXPRESSE D BY THE LD. AO IN THE REMAND REPORT. 19. WE FURTHER FIND THAT LD. AR HAS REFERRED AND RE LIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. BHOGILAL RAMJIBHAI ATARA IN TAX APPEAL NO.588 OF 20 13 ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE RELATING TO ADDITION UNDER SECTION41(1) O F THE ACT AND THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD AS BELOW :- WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL. SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT AS DISCUSSED IN THE ABOVE THREE DECISIONS WOULD APP LY IN A CASE WHERE THERE HAS BEEN REMISSION OR CESSATION OF LIABILITY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED I N THE STATUTE BEING FULFILLED. ADDITIONALLY, SUCH CESSATION OR REMISSION HAS TO BE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . IN THE PRESENT CASE, BOTH ELEMENTS ARE MISSING. THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD T O SUGGEST THERE WAS REMISSION OR CESSATION OF LIABILITY THAT TOO DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHICH WAS THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. IT IS UNDOUBTEDLY A CURIOUS CASE. EVEN THE LIABILITY ITSE LF SEEMS UNDER SERIOUS DOUBT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDERTOOK THE EXERCISE TO VERIFY THE RECORDS OF THE SO CALLED CREDITORS. MANY OF THEM WERE NOT FOUN D AT ALL IN THE GIVEN ADDRESS. SOME OF THEM STATED THAT THEY HAD NO DEALI NG WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN ONE OR TWO CASES, THE RESPONSE WAS THAT THEY HAD NO DEALING WITH THE ASSESSEE NOR DID THEY KNOW HIM. OF COURSE, THESE INQUIRIES W ERE MADE EX PARTE AND IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ALLO WED TO CONTEST SUCH FINDINGS. NEVERTHELESS, EVEN IF SUCH FACTS WERE EST ABLISHED THROUGH BI-PARTE INQUIRIES, THE LIABILITY AS IT STANDS PERHAPS HOLDS THAT THERE WAS NO CESSATION OR REMISSION OF LIABILITY AND THAT THEREFORE, THE AMOU NT IN QUESTION CANNOT BE ADDED BACK AS A DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 41(C) F THE ACT. THIS IS ONE OF THE STRANGE CASES WHERE EVEN IF THE DEBT ITSELF IS FOUND TO BE NON-GENUINE FROM THE VERY INCEPTION, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF SECTI ON 41(1) OF THE ACT THERE IS NO CURE FOR IT. BE THAT AS IT MAY, INSOFAR AS THE O RDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE CONCERNED, THE TRIBUNAL NOT HAVING MADE ANY ERROR, THIS TAX APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 15 20. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON. JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHOGILAL RAMJIBHAI ATA RA (SUPRA) WE ARE, OF THE VIEW THAT NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR U/S 41(1 ) OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS. 48,200/- AND RS.39,3 00/-. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 21. THE NEXT GROUND TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIS ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.90,730/-. 22. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASS ESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS TOWARDS ADDITION OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AT RS.5,40,330/- AND ADDITION TOWARDS FACTORY BUILDING AT RS.53,579/-. DUE TO THIS REASON DEPRECIATION @ 1 5% ON RS.5,40,330/- AND 10% ON RS.53,579/- WAS DISALLOWED . IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THE GROUND WAS PARTLY ALLOWED BY LD. CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 4.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARN ED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS ALSO NOTED E ARLIER THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE COMPLETE COPY OF BILLS EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND REPORT AND SUBSEQUENT INVOICE FILED BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED WERE NOT CONSIDERED AS GENUINE AND ADMISSIBLE AND T HEREFORE ON PRINCIPLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION IS UPHELD. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REWORK THIS DISALLOWANCE IN VIEW OF THE PART INVOICE PRODUCED D URING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THIS GROUND IS PARTIALLY ALLOWED. 23. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 16 24. LD. AR REFERRED AND RELIED ON THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR SUPP ORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 25. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT WHEN THE REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR BY THE CIT(A) FOR EXAMINING THE ADDITION U/S 68, ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO PRODUCE ONLY COPY OF BILL FOR RS.729/- FOR VERIFICA TION OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION TOWARDS FACTORY BUILDING AT RS.53,579/-. A S REGARDS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PLANT AND MACHINERY, ASSESSEE PRODUCE D BILLS OF RS.2,90,183/- FOR VERIFICATION. FOR THE REMAINING A MOUNT OF ADDITION TOWARDS FACTORY BUILDING AND PLANT AND MACHINERY AS SESSEE NEITHER PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORIT Y NOR LD. AR HAS BEEN ABLE TO IMPROVE HIS CASE FURTHER THAN OVER THE FACTS BROUGHT IN BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN REMAND REPORT. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATI ON OF RS.90,730/- ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON RS.729/- TOWARDS FACTORY BUILDING AND DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY AT RS.2,90,183/- AS PER APPLICABLE RATES AND ON THE BASIS OF DATE OF PU RCHASES OF ASSETS. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CALCULATE THE DE PRECIATION ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 26. OTHER GROUNDS ARE OF GENERAL NATURE, WHICH NEED NO ADJUDICATION. 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 913/AHD/2011 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 17 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 20/9/2016 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 09/09/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 12-20/09/2016 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK:2 0/9/16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: