Sri. JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI, MUMBAI V. ACIT CEN. CIR. 18(1), MUMBAI

ITSSA 101/MUM/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8068 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBACHAN RAM
• Assessee Lawyers: N M PORWAL
• Keywords: Salary income; Block assessment
• Section: 131; 68; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU NAL MUMBAI BENCH D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAG HAVAN (JM) IT(SS)A NO.101/MUM/2004 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1991 TO 5.3.2001 SHRI JI N ENDRA GANDHI, 131, PARDIWALA CHAWL, SUNMILL ROAD, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400 013 PAN- VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 18(1), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI N.M. PORWAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SUBACHAN RAM O R D E R DATE OF HEARING : 09.06.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :30.8.2011 PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2003 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XVIII FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1991 TO 5.3.2001. 2. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20 TH MARCH, 2003 AT PARA 1 TO 3 READ AS UNDER:- SHRI JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI, RESIDENT OF LOWER PAREL , MUMBAI WAS ARRESTED BY THE RAILWAY POLICE, VASCO, G OA ON 3.3.2001 AS HE WAS FOUND IN POSSESSION OF CASH AMOU NTING TO RS.9,25,000/-. HE COULD NOT GIVE A SATISFACTORY ACC OUNT FOR THE POSSESSION OF THE SAME. A WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION U/S.132A ITA NO. 101/M/04 2 DATED 5.3.2001 WAS ISSUED BY DIT (INV), BANGALORE I N ORDER TO SEIZE THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASH. THE WARRANT WAS EXE CUTED ON 5.3.2001 AND THE CASH OF RS.9,25,000/- WAS SEIZE D FROM THE SHO, VASCO RAILWAY STATION ON 7.3.2001. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION, A STATEMENT U/S.132(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WAS RECORDED FROM SHRI JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI WHO WAS STILL THERE IN THE PO LICE CUSTODY CLAIMED TO BE AN EMPLOYEE OF SNOW WHITE LAU NDRY BASED AT MUMBAI, BUT COULD NOT GIVEN THE CORRECT AD DRESS. SHRI JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI IN HIS STATEMENT SAID TH AT THIS MONEY WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY M/S. SNOW WHITE LAUNDRY PROPRIETOR WHO HAD ASKED HIM TO HAND-OVER THE SAME TO HIM AT HIS RESIDENCE AT BHATKAL, THE EXACT ADDRESS HE COUL D NOT REMEMBER. 3. IN THEIR SUBMISSION TO DDIT(INV), UNIT VIII(2), MUMBAI, THE BELOW MENTIONED PARTIES EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOU NT OF RS.9,25,000/- WAS COLLECTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQU ISITIONS OF 45% PARTNERSHIP SHARE HOLDING BY MR. R. ADBDUL LATI F AND SMT. SAHARABANU LATIF (RETIRING PARTNERS) IN M/S. S NOVITE CLEANING WORKS. SHRI ABDUL REHMAN DAMDA AND SHRI MOHAMED ZUBAIR IS ALREADY EXISTING PARTNER IN SNOVI TE CLEANING WORKS AND AS WELL AS CONTINUING PARTNER, W HILE SHRI ZIA UR REHMAN AND LOKESH JAIN WERE TO BE ADMITTED A S NEW PARTNERS. THE AMOUNT OF RS.9,25,000/- WAS CONTRIBUT ED BY THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS: NAME CONTRIBUTION 1. ABDUL REHMAN DAMA RS.5,00,000 2. ZIA UR REHMAN RS.1,00,000 3. MOHAMED ZUBAIR RS.1,00,000 4. LOKESH JAIN RS.2,25,000 RS.9,25,000 3. WE ALSO REPRODUCE PARA 9 OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 9. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES HAVE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THEIR STATEMENTS THAT THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,25,000/- TO SHRI JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI TO ACQUIRE 45% STAKE IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT ENTIRE AMO UNT OF RS.9,25,000/- BELONGS TO SHRI JINENDRA KUMAR GAN DHI WHICH REPRESENTS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THE SAM E ITA NO. 101/M/04 3 IS BEING ASSESSED IN HIS HANDS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOM E. FURTHER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FI LED HIS RETURNS OF INCOME FROM A.Y. 1992-93 TO 2001-02. THE REFORE, THE RETURNED INCOME FOR ALL THESE YEARS IS BEING TR EATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO BE ASSESSED IN HIS HAND FOR T HE PRESENT BLOCK PERIOD. 4. THE AO FURTHER HELD AS FOLLOWS: FURTHER IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FIL ED HIS RETURNS OF INCOME FROM A.Y. 1992-93 TO 2221-02. THEREFORE THE RETURNED INCOME FOR ALL THESE YEARS IS BEING TREATED AS UNDI SCLOSED INCOME TO BE ASSESSED IN HIS HAND FOR THE PRESENT BLOCK PERIO D. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ON THE DAY T HE ASSESSEE WAS ARRESTED BY THE VASCO POLICE, HE HAD BROUGHT THE FACT TO THEIR NOTICE THAT ASSESSEE IS ONLY AN EMPLOYEE OF M/S. SNOW WHI TE CLEANING WORKS AND THE SAID CASH BELONGED TO THE PARTNER OF M/S. S NOW WHITE CLEARING WORKS WHICH WAS GIVEN TO HIM TO BE HANDED OVER AT H IS RESIDENCE IN BHATKAL. HOWEVER, OUT OF FEAR THE ASSESSEE COULD N OT STATE THE NAME OF THE PARTNER, WHO HAD HANDED OVER THE CASH TO HIM NO R COULD HE STATE THE EXACT ADDRESS WHERE THE CASH HAD TO BE DELIVERED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE AT THE SAME TIME HAD DESCRIBED THE LOCATION OF THE PLACE I.E. THE RESIDENCE OF THE PARTNER IN BHATKAL AND ALSO STATED THAT THE SAID MONEY WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE OWNER OF M/S. SNOW WHITE CLEANING WOR KS WHO WAS A MUSLIM SAIB. EVEN ON CROSS VERIFICATION BY THE VASC O POLICE ON THE SAME DAY THE PARTNER OF M/S. SNOW WHITE CLEANING WORKS, SHRI ABDUL DAMDA CONFIRMED THAT THE CASH BELONGED TO HIM AND THE SAM E WAS BEING SENT TO BHATKAL BY HIM AND THE OTHER PARTNERS BY WAY OF PAY MENT FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE ACCOUNT OF A RETIRING PARTNER. SUBSEQUENTLY , AT THE TIME OF RECORDING THE STATEMENT ON 31.12.2001, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONCE AGAIN REITERATED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS. THE DDI ALSO RECO RDED THE STATEMENT OF THE CONTINUING PARTNERS AND NEW PARTNERS OF M/S. SN OW WHITE CLEANING WORKS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE STATEMENT EACH OF THE SAID PARTNERS ITA NO. 101/M/04 4 ACCEPTED THAT THE SAID MONEY BELONGED TO THEM AND A LSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE SAID FUNDS. THE DRAFT DEED OF THE RE TIREMENT CUM PARTNERSHIP DEED PURSUANT TO WHICH THE SAID PAYMENT WAS BEING MADE WAS ALSO SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF THE STATEME NT ON 31.12.2001. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE SAID PARTIES , EXCEPT SHRI ZIAUR REHMAN ONCE AGAIN APPEARED AND CONFIRMED THAT THE S AID MONEY BELONGED TO THEM. IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE UNDERSIGNED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ON THE HAPPENING OF THE AF ORESAID EVENT HAD LEFT THE EMPLOYMENT OF M/S. SNOW WHITE CLEANING WOR KS, STILL AFTER A PERIOD NEARLY 10 MONTHS, THE PARTNERS OF THE SAID E MPLOYER M/S. SNOW WHITE CLEANING WORKS HAVE COME FORWARD AND ACCEPTED THAT THE SAID SUMS BELONGED TO THEM, WHICH PROVES THE FACT, THAT THE SAID PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN THE MONEY SINCE THE SAME BELONGS TO T HEM. 6. THE AR ONCE AGAIN SUBMITTED THAT THE ONUS CAST U PON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID AMOUNT, HAS BEE N DISCHARGED BY HIM, BY BRINGING SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD, BY WAY OF STATEMENTS OF THE PARTNERS RECORDED, IN WHICH THEY HAVE ACCEPTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS BELONG TO THEM AND PROVED THE SOURCE OF SAID FUNDS. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,25,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMED TO BE UNWARRANTED. 7. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT EVEN IF FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE SAID PARTNERS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY, FOUND IN THE ASSESSEES POSSESSION IN VIEW OF THEIR ACCEPTANCE, THE ADDITION, IF ANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN M ADE BY THE AO IN THE HANDS OF THE SAID PARTNERS, AS ALL OF THEM ARE INCO ME TAX ASSESSEES AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS THE SAID PARTI ES HAVE ACCEPTED AND TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH. ITA NO. 101/M/04 5 8. FURTHER THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PERSON OF LIMITED MEANS, WHO IS NOT CAPABLE OF EARNING SO MUCH INCOME , WHICH IS FURTHER PROVEN BY THE FACT THAT HE IS A MERE EMPLOYEE OF TH E SAID M/S. SNOW WHITE CLEARING WORKS, IN THE CAPACITY OF A CLERK. F URTHER THE ASSESSEE IS RESIDING IN A CHAWL, WHICH IS ALSO ACQUIRED ON RENT AL BASIS, AND ALSO THE BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS SUBMITTED IN THE PAPER BOOK SH OW THE LIMITED MEANS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE IT IS HIGHLY IMPROB ABLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 9.25 LAKHS. 9. AS REGARDS THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL, CONCERNI NG THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,30,417/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FROM A.YRS 1992- 93 TO 2001-02. IT WAS STATED BY THE AR THAT AS THE SAME WERE BELOW TAXABL E LIMIT, THE INCOME RETURNED IN THE BLOCK RETURN OF INCOME FOR ALL THES E YEARS IS BEING WRONGLY TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO BE ASSESSE D IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE PRESENT BLOCK PERIOD. 10. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS EVIDE NT FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, FILED ALONGWITH THE BLOCK RE TURN OF INCOME THAT IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO, WITHOUT MAKING ANY ADDITION S, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE SAID A.YRS IS BELOW THE TA XABLE LIMIT AND PRECISELY THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETU RN OF INCOME. 11. THE AR FURTHER BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF LD. CIT (A) THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 158BB. AS PER SEC. 158BB FOR THE COMPUTATION OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD, IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALL Y PROVIDED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD SHALL BE THE AGGREGATE OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEARS FALLING WITHIN THE BL OCK PERIOD COMPUTED, AS REDUCED BY THE AGGREGATE OF THE TOTAL INCOME, OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, AS INCREASED BY THE AGGREGATE OF THE LOSSES OF SUCH PREVIOUS YEARS DETERMINED. FURTHER, IT WAS ARGUED THAT IN ACCORDA NCE WITH SEC. ITA NO. 101/M/04 6 158BB(1)(C)(B) IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS EXPIRED, BUT NO RETURN OF INC OME HAS BEEN FILED, ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES AS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE ON OR BEF ORE THE DATE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION, WHERE SUCH INCOME DOES NOT E XCEED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT, NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR , FALLING IN THE BLOCK PERIOD, THE AGGREGATE OF THE INCOMES FOR ALL THESE YEARS SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERI OD. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 158BB(1 )(C)(B), THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE SHALL NOT INCLUDE THE INCOME FOR THE A.RS 1992-93 TO 2001-02, SINCE T HE SAME IS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT, AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. THIS VIEW IS STATED TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT, INDORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRIMALI SITA DEVI DAGA VS ACIT (67 ITD 151) AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT CHANDIGAR H BENCH IN THE CASE OF SATPAL SINGH VS ACIT REPORTED IN (67 TTJ 602). 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND SPECIFIC P ROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN INCLUDING IN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEARS FOR WHICH NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED AS THE SAME WERE BELOW THE TAXABLE L IMITS. 14. IT WAS FINALLY SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING THE SUM OF RS. 9,25,000/- AND RS. 3,30,417/- AS THE UND ISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1.4.1991 TO 5.3.2001. 15. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT IT IS EXTREMELY IMPROB ABLE THAT CASH OF SUCH LARGE QUANTITY WOULD NEED TO BE CARRIED ALL TH E WAY TO A DISTANT PLACE WHEN THE SAID TWO RETIRING PARTNERS THEMSELVE S HAD BANK ACCOUNTS ITA NO. 101/M/04 7 AND PLACES OF RESIDENCE IS MUMBAI ITSELF. HENCE TH E AMOUNT COULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED EASILY TO THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS WITH OUT INCURRING THE RISK OF TRANSPORTING CASH TO A REMOTE DESTINATION. THERE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT HE WAS FULLY CONVINCED THAT THE SAID CASH WAS NOT CARRIED ALL THE WAY FROM MUMBAI TO BHATKAL. HAVING REACH THIS C ONCLUSION THE LD. CIT(A) ANALYZED THE EXPLANATION OFFERED AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF CASH. 16. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE AO, SHRI ABDUL R. DAMDA, WHO IT IS CLAIMED TO HAVE GIVEN THE CASH OF RS. 9.25 LAKHS TO THE APPELLANT, INITIALLY NEVER MENTIONED THAT PART OF THE AMOUNT, I.E. RS. 5 LAKHS WAS GIVEN BY HIM AND THE BALANCE RS. 4.25 LAKHS BY SOME OTHER THREE PERSONS. THIS POSSIBLY INDICATES THAT THE NAMES OF THE OTHER THRE E INDIVIDUALS WERE INCLUDED IN THE EXPLANATIONS REGARDING THE SOURCES AS AN AFTER THOUGHT. EVEN SHRI ABDUL R. DAMDA COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOUR CE OF THE RS. 5 LAKHS, ALLEGEDLY CONTRIBUTED BY HIM. THE AO FOUND THAT NO NEXUS COULD BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN SHRI DAMDAS CASH DRAWINGS AND THE AMOUNT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY HIM. SIMILARLY, THE OTHER THREE PERSONS ALSO COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THEIR RESPECTIVE S OURCES OF ACQUISITION OF THE CASH LD. ARS HEAVY RELIANCE ON A DRAFT RETIREMENT CUM PARTNERSHIP DEED, CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PREPARED ON 28.2.2001, AS THAT IS THE DATE OF THE STAMP PAPER OF RS. 500/- ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF M/S. S NOW WHITE CLEANING WORKS, DOES NOT CUT MUCH ICE SO FAR AS I AM CONCERN ED. WITHOUT MAKING ANY ALLEGATIONS, I WOULD STILL LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT IT IS NOT TOO DIFFICULT TO ACQUIRE STAMP PAPER WHICH IS ANTEDATED BY FEW DAYS OR EVEN WEEKS. THIS DOCUMENT WAS IN ANY CASE PRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIM E IN DECEMBER , 2001 BEFORE THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION WHEN THE S TATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND SHRI DAMDA WERE RECORDED. I WOULD TH EREFORE HOLD THAT THE DOCUMENT IS A SELF SERVING PIECE OF EVIDENCE PREPAR ED BY CERTAIN INTERESTED PARTIES AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CONCLUSIVE EVID ENCE TO ESTABLISH THE ALLEGED INTENTIONS OF CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. 17. FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT ABLE TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN HIS POSSESSION OF CASH OF RS . 9,25,000/- AS ON 3.3.2001. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THERE IS NO REASON T O DISBELIEVE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT HE IS A MAN OF SMALL MEANS, I T HAS STILL TO BE HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 9.25 LAKHS REPRESENTED HIS U NDISCLOSED INCOME ITA NO. 101/M/04 8 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISI ONS OF CHAPTER XIV-B, AS HE COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN POSSESSION OF THE SAME. 18. WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF RS.3,31,417/- TO THE ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 9.25 LAKHS THE AR ARGUED THAT THIS ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING THE INCOME BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT FOR EACH OF THE YEARS COMPRISING THE BLOCK PERIOD AND THEREFORE HE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO FILE RETURNS OF I NCOME FOR THOSE YEARS. THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT SEC. 158BB CLEARLY LAYS D OWN THE METHOD OF COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERI OD. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SEC 1 OF S EC. 158BB, WHERE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING A RETURN OF INCOME HAS EXPIRED, BUT NO RETURN HAS BEEN FILED AND WHERE IT IS THE CLAIM OF AN ASSESSEE THAT HIS INCOME DID NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR FALLING IN THE BLOCK PERIOD, THEN DEDUCTION OF SUCH AMOUNTS CAN BE ALLOWED FROM THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BL OCK PERIOD ONLY IF ENTRIES ARE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OT HER DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE TO SHOW THAT SU CH INCOME WAS ACTUALLY WHAT IT IS CLAIMED TO BE. THIS WAS POINTE D OUT TO THE LD. AR DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED WHETHER ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S. SN OW WHITE CLEANING WORKS, MUMBAI FROM WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS SAID TO B E DERIVING SALARY INCOME, SHOWED THAT HE WAS BEING PAID SUCH SALARY F ROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE AR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT NO SUCH EVIDENCE APPARE NTLY EXISTED. 19. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT E NTITLED TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,35,417/- FROM THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AND THEREFORE CONFIRM THE AOS ACTION IN ADDING THIS AMOUNT TO THE UNEXPLAINED CASH OF RS. 9.25 LAKHS. 20. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 101/M/04 9 21. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI N.M PORWA L BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE STATEMENT U/S. 132(4) OF THE I.T. ACT, D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION, RECORDED FROM SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR G ANDHI, WHO WAS IN THE POLICE CUSTODY. 22. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED TO QUESTION NOS. 1 TO 8 W HICH ARE AS UNDER: Q.1 PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF? ANS : I AM SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR GANDHI S/O AMRUTLAL GANDHI AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDENCE OF IRANI CHAWL, ROOM NO.8, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400 013. Q.2 WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION? ANS: I AM DOING JOB WORKS OF PACKING JERRY POWDER ( JARI). I AM PROPRIETOR OF THIS CONCERN. I GET INCOME OF RS.4 500/- TO RS.5,000/- PER MONTH FROM THIS WORK. SINCE FOUR MON THS ALSO I AM WORKING AT SNOW WHITE LAUNDRY ADDRESSED AT DONGR I, MUMBAI (NEAR SANDHERST ROAD STATION). NOTE: THE ABOVE ADDRESS OF M/S. SNOVITE LAUNDRY IS CORREC T. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE C OULD NOT GIVE CORRECT ADDRESS IS NOT TRUE. Q.3 GIVE THE NAME OF PROP. OF LAUNDRY AND ADDRESS? ANS: I DO NOT KNOW HIS NAME BUT THE SAME TO BE MUSL IM (SAIT) NOTE: MR. JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI HAS STATED THAT THE PROPR IETOR OF M/S. SNOVITE LAUNDRY IS MUSLIM. MR. ABDUL REHMAN DA MDA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SNOVITE LAUNDRY IS A MUSLIM PERS ON WHICH IS CORRECT. IN A DISTURBED STATE OF MIND DUE TO SEA RCH AND SEIZURE ACTION, HE COULD NOT REMEMBER THE NAME. Q.4 ARE YOU INCOME TAX ASSESSEE? ANS. I AM NOT INCOME TAX PAYEE. Q.5 IT IS LEARNED CIT(A) THAT YOU HAVE BEEN FOUND I N POSITION OF MONEY AMOUNTING RS.9,25,000/- (NINE LAKHS & TWEN TY FIVE THOUSAND) AND SAME HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BY T HE ITA NO. 101/M/04 10 RAILWAY POLICE, VASCO ON 03/03/2001 AT MADGAON RLY. STATION AT 2 P.M. WHAT YOU SAY FOR THIS? ANS : THIS MONEY BELONGS TO SNOW WHITE LOUNDARYS PROPRIETOR AT MUMBAI. HE HAD ASKED ME TO HAND-OVER THIS MONEY TO HIS RESIDENCE AT BHATKAL. NOTE: ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR THE POSSESSION OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.9,25,000/-. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO Q.5 HAS STA TED THAT THIS MONEY BELONGS TO SNOW WHITE LOUNDARYS PROPRI ETOR AT MUMBAI. HE HAD ASKED ME TO HAND-OVER THIS MONEY TO HIS RESIDENCE AT BHATKAL. THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPOSED TO GIVE SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR THE POSSESSION OF RS.9 ,25,000/- PROVIDE THE SAID AMOUNT BELONGED TO HIM. THE QUESTI ON OF GIVING EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.9,25,000/- DOES NOT ARISE, WHEN HE HAS STATED THAT THE MONEY BELONGS TO M/S. SNOVITE LAUNDRY PROPRIETOR. IT IS FOR M/S. SNOVITE LAUNDRY PROPRIETOR TO GIVE SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.9,25,000/-. Q.6 GIVE THE DETAIL ADDRESS OF THE RESIDENCE AT BHA TKA;? ANS: I DO NOT REMEMBER THE EXACT LOCATION AND ADDRE SS. Q.7 GIVE THE PHONE NUMBERS OF SNOW WHITE LOUNDRY AT MUMBAI ANS: PHONE NUMBER IS 3728136/3720277. NOTE: HE WAS PURPOSELY CARRYING WITH HIM TWO TELEPHONE NU MBERS OF M/S. SNOVITE LAUNDRY PROPRIETOR SO THAT IF ANY P ROBLEM ARISES HE COULD CONTACT M/S. SNOVITE LAUNDRY PROPRI ETOR AND GET THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF BHATKAL RESIDENCE. THESE TWO TELEPHONE NUMBERS WERE GIVEN TO VASCO RAILWAY POLIC E WHEN THEY WERE HARASSING THE ASSESSEE. VASCO RAILWAY POL ICE STATION CONTACTED M/S. SNOVITE LAUNDRY PROPRIETOR O N THESE TWO TELEPHONE NUMBER AND VERIFIED WHETHER THE SAID AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO WHICH M/S. SNOVITE LAU NDRY PROPRIETOR REPLIED THAT THE SAID CASH OF RS.9,25,00 0/- WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE FOR CARRYING TO BHATKAL RESIDENCE . IT WAS ONLY AFTER VASCO RAILWAY POLICE SPOKE TO M/S. SNOVI TE LAUNDRY PROPRIETOR THEY WERE SATISFIED AND THEREAFT ER THERE WAS NO HARASSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN MR. MAHESH BAHUGUNA FROM INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT SPOKE TO M/S. S NOVITE ITA NO. 101/M/04 11 LAUNDRY PROPRIETOR FROM VASCO AND VERIFIED WHETHER THE SAID CASH BELONGED TO M/S. SNOVITE LAUNDRY PROPRIETOR. M R. ABDUL REHMAN DAMDA HAS STATED THIS IN DETAIL WHILE GIVING HIS STATEMENT U/S.131 TO THE MUMBAI INCOME-TAX DEPARTME NT APPEARING AT PAGE NOS.6 TO 8 OF PAPER BOOK-VOLUME I (A). Q.8 GIVE DETAILS OF THE BHATKAL RESIDENCE WITH PHON E NUMBER ? ANS: FROM THE BHATKAL BUS STAND, IT IS ABOUT 1 TO 1 1/2 KM ON THE MAIN ROAD. I DO NOT KNOW THE PHONE NUMBER. 23. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED O UT THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI ABDUL REHMAN DAMDA TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT APPEARING AT PAGE 6 TO 7 OF THE PAPER BO OK IN REPLY, QUESTION NO. 4 IS AS FOLLOWS: Q.4. GIVE DETAILS OF THE INCIDENT INVOLVING SHRI J ITENDRAKUMAR GANDHI AT VASCO RAILWAY STATION, GOA? ANS. ON MY INSTRUCTIONS, SHRI JITENDRAKUMAR GANDHI WAS CARRYING RS. 9,25,000/- FROM MUMBAI TO BE DELIVERED TO MY WIFE MRS. BIBI RAMIZA AT MY NATIVE PLACE ADDRESSED AT SHAANDAR HOUSE, NAVAYATH COLONY BHATKAL, KARVAR DIS TRICT, KARNATAKA. WHILE SHRI JITENDRAKUMAR GANDHI WAS GOI NG FROM MUMBAI TO BHATKAL, HE GOT DOWN AT MADGOAN TO TAKE T HE FURTHER PASSENGER TRAIN FOR BHATKAL. THE MADGOAN R AILWAY POLICE ASKED HIM TO OPEN THE BRIEFCASE WHICH WAS CO NTAINING CASH AMOUNT OF RS. 9,25,000/- IN VARIOUS DENOMINATI ONS. THEN SUBSEQUENTLY, THE VASCO RAILWAY POLICE HAD CAL LED AT MUMBAI TO ME AND INFORMED ABOUT THE INCIDENCE. I H AD INFORMED THEM THAT MY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, SHRI P. K. KOTHARI WILL BE COMING OVER THERE TO EXPLAIN THE EN TIRE FACT OF THE CASE. SUBSEQUENTLY, I HAD SENT MY CHARTERED AC COUNTANT, SHRI P.K. KOTHARI OVER THERE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME BU T BEFORE RELEASING THE CASH BY VASCO POLICE, THE I.T. DEPART MENT HAD SEIZED RS. 9,25,000/- AND TAKEN THE POSSESSION OF T HE SAME. MY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, SHRI P.K. KOTHARI HAD COVE RSION WITH SHRI MAHESH BAHUGUNA AND GIVEN THE PAN NO. AND WARD WHERE SHRI ABDUL REHMAN DAMDA IS ASSESSED AT MUMBAI 24. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS : ITA NO. 101/M/04 12 1) ACIT VS OMPRAKASH & CO. 87 TTJ 183 (MUM), 2) CIT VS SHRAVAN KUMAR GURJAR 230 CTR 539(DEL 3) BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF SURENDRA M. KHANDHAR VS ACIT & ORS 224 CTR 409 4) P.R. METRANI VS CIT 206 CTR 290(SC). 25. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS OTHER JU DGEMENTS WHICH ARE AT VOLUME I(D) OF THE PAPER BOOK. 26. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI SUBACH AN RAM ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES AND EMPHASIS THAT THE FOLLOWING REASONS PREVAILED ON THE AO WHILE CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE 1. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT EVEN GIVE THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO IS ALLEGED TO HAVE GIVEN THE SUM OF RS. 9.25 LAKHS ON THE DATE WHEN HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED, BOTH ON 3.3.2001 BY THE POL ICE AND 5.3.2011 BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER OF THE I.T. DEPARTMENT. 2. HE COULD NOT GIVE THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF M/S. SNOW WHITE LAU7NDRY, MUMBAI WHERE HE CLAIMED TO BE WORKING AND WHOSE PRO PRIETOR HAD ALLEGEDLY GIVEN HIM THE MONEY. 3. HE COULD NOT EVEN GIVE THE ADDRESS OF THE PROPRIETO RS RESIDENCE AT BHATKAL WHERE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DELIVER THE MONEY. 4. SHRUI ABDUL R DAMDA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SNOW WHITE CLEANING WORKS, MUMBAI WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE HANDED OVER THE CASH TO T HE APPELLANT, COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FROM W HICH HE ACQUIRED THE SAID CASH. 5. THE THREE PERSONS, OTHER THAN SHRI ABDUL REHMAN DAM DA, WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE GIVEN AN AGGREGATE OF RS. 4.25 LAKHS TO SHR I ABDUL R. DAMDA, FOR PASSING IT ON TO THE APPELLANT, COULD NOT SATIS FACTORILY PROVE AND ESTABLISH THE SOURCES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE ACQUISITI ON OF THE CASH. ITA NO. 101/M/04 13 6. THE AO FOUND THAT THE SAID PARTIES HAVE FAILED TO E STABLISH THE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THEIR STATEMEN TS AND TO PROVE THAT THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 9,25,0 00/- TO THE APPELLANT FOR BEING DELIVERED AT BHATKAL. 27. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE FOL LOWING 4 PARTIES HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED RS. 9.25 LAKHS IN THEIR STATEMENTS GIVE TO THE DDIT (INV). 1) ABDUL REHMAN DAMDA RS. 5,00,000 2) ZIA UR REHMAN RS. 1,00,000 3) MOHAMED ZUBAIR RS. 1,00,000 4) LOKESH JAIN RS. 2,25,000 28. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED IN HIS STATEMENT RECORD ED U/S. 132(4) IN REPLY TO 8 QUESTIONS SATISFACTORILY WHICH IS ELABOR ATED HEREUNDER: 29. THE ASSESSEE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AND STATED THAT HE WAS WORKING WITH SNOWHITE NEAR SANDHURST ROAD STATION. HE STAT ED THAT THE PROPRIETOR IS A MUSLIM AND THAT HE IS NOT AN INCOME TAX PAYEE. WITH RESPECT TO THE POSSESSION OF MONEY HE STATED THAT THE MONEY BELONGS TO SNOWITE LAUNDRY AND THE PROPRIETOR HAD ASKED THE AS SESSEE TO HANDOVER THE MONEY AT HIS RESIDENCE AT BHATKAL. HE DID NOT KNOW THE ADDRESS OF THE RESIDENCE AT BHATKAL. HOWEVER HE GAVE THE PH ONE NO. OF SNOVITE LAUNDRY AT MUMBAI. MR. ABDUL REHMAN DAMDA HAS CONF IRMED THE STATEMENT U/S. 131 THAT THE VASCO RAILWAY POLICE HA D CALLED HIM ON THESE TELEPHONE NOS. AND INFORMED HIM ABOUT THE INC IDENT. IN REPLY TO THE SPECIFIC QUESTION BY RAILWAY POLICE MR. ABDUL R EHMAN DAMDA REPLIED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 9.25,000 BELONGS TO HIM AND THREE OTHER PARTIES. FURTHER, MR. ABDUL REHMAN DAMDA NOT ONLY SPOKE TO V ASCO RAILWAY POLICE STATION PEOPLE AND I.T. DEPARTMENT MR. MAHES H BAHUGUNA CONFIRMING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 9,25,000/- BELON G TO THEM. HE ALSO ITA NO. 101/M/04 14 DEPUTED HIS C.A. SHRI P.K. KOTHARI TO MADGAON VASCO RAILWAY POLICE STATION. THIS SHOWS THAT MR. ABDUL REHMAN DAMDA WA S VERY MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT THE WHOLE INCIDENT AND HIS C.A SHRI P.K. KOTHARI WAS SPECIFICALLY SENT FROM MUMBAI TO MADGAON VASCO RAIL WAY POLICE STATION SO THAT MR. P.K. KOTHARI MET THEIR I.T. DEPARTMENT MR. MAHESH BAHUGUNA AND GAVE THE PAN NO. AND WARD WHERE MR. AB DUL REHMAN DAMDA IS ASSESSED IN MUMBAI CONFIRMING THAT THE SAI D AMOUNT OF RS. 9,25,000/- BELONGS TO HIM AND THREE OTHER PARTIES. BUT BY THE TIME HE MET MR. MAHESH BAHUGUNA, THE AMOUNT WAS ALREADY SEI ZED BY THE I.T. DEPARTMENT WHO TOOK POSSESSION OF THE SAME. MR. A BDUL REHMAN DAMDA HAS STATED ALL THIS IN HIS STATMENT U/S. 131 IN REPLY TO Q. 4. 30. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE WORDS IN SUB-SEC TION (4A) OF SEC. 132 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ARE MAY BE PRESUMED. T HE PRESUMPTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (4A) THEREFORE IS A REBUTTAL PRES UMPTION. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SUB-SEC TION (4A) OF SEC. 132 BY BRINGING ON RECORD ALL THE ABOVE FACTS RECOR DED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE FIRST AVAILABLE OP PORTUNITY OF THE ASSESSEE ON 7 TH MARCH, 2001 AS WELL AS STATEMENT RECORDED OF MR. A BDUL REHMAN DAMDA SUBSEQUENTLY. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE AO TO DRAW A PRESUMPTION U/S. 132(4A) AGAINST THE A SSESSEE THAT THE CASH OF RS. 9,25,000/- BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. I T IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS OF HIS EMPL OYER IN CARRYING THE CASH FROM MUMBAI TO BHATKAL FOR DELIVERING AT THE E MPLOYERS RESIDENCE AND THE CASH IN QUESTION DID NOT BELONG TO HIM. 31. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHRAVAN KUMAR GURJAR 230 CTR 539(DEL), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE PRESUMPTION U/S. 132(4A) IS NOT ENOUGH TO FASTE N THE LIA BILITY ON THE PERSON SEARCHED, THE REVENUE HAS TO PROVE INDEPENDENT OF SECTION 132(4A) THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 68 TO 69D. FURTHER IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE WHO ITA NO. 101/M/04 15 ONLY ACTED AS A BOOKING AGENT COULD NOT BE PRESUMED TO BE OWNER OF VALUABLES DETECTED IN A SEARCH OPERATION BY POLICE WHERE IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE SEIZED GOODS BELONG TO ANGARI AS WHO HAD BOOKED THE GOODS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION C OULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 32. WE ALSO FIND FROM THE MUMBAI ITAT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF ABDUL REHMAN DAMDA IN IT(SS) NO.1/M/07 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.91 TO 5.3.2001, MR. ZIA UR REHMAN IT(SS) A NO. 3/M/07 BLO CK PERIOD 1.4.91 TO 5.3.2001 AND SHRI MOHD ZUBAIR ALIAKBAR IT (SS)A NO. 2/M/07 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4. 1991 TO 5.3.2001BOTH IN THE REGULAR AS WELL AS BLOCK ASSESSMENT THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE EXTEN T OF THEIR SHARE OF RS. 9,25,000/- FOUND WITH THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BEC AUSE THE 4 PARTIES COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS. 9.2 5,000/- IN THEIR ASSESSMENTS, THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 33. THE DEFINITION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS GIVEN I N SEC. 158B(B) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE BECA USE THE CASH FOUND OF RS. 9,25,000/- DOES NOT REPRESENT HIS INCOME OR PRO PERTY FOR THE REASON THAT MR. ABDUL REHAMAN DAMA HAD CONFIRMED TO THE POLICE AS WELL AS THE I.T. DEPARTMENT BY STATEMENT U/S. 131 THAT THE SAID CASH OF RS. 9,25,000/- BELONGS TO HIMSELF AND THREE OTHERS. 34. FURTHER SEC. 158BB(1) IS NOT APPLICABLE AS NO M ATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OTHER THAN THE STATEM ENTS RECORDED OF THE FOUR PARTIES CONFIRMING THE CASH OF RS. 9,25,000/- BELONGS TO THEM. REGARDING SEC. 158BB(2) WE HOLD THAT SEC. 69A IS NO T APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BECAUSE THE CASH OF RS. 9,25,000 /- DOES NOT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 9,25, 000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS DELETED. ITA NO. 101/M/04 16 35. WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,30,417/- MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FROM A.Y. 1992-93 TO 2001-02, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FROM A. Y. 1992-93 TO 2001-02 AS THE SAME WAS BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT AND HENCE THE A SSESSEE WAS NOT BOUND TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE SAID YE ARS. AS PER SEC. 158BB(1)(C)(B), WHERE INCOME WAS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 36. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (A SHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER MUMBAI, DATED 30 TH AUGUST, 2011 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR D BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI ITA NO. 101/M/04 17 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 16 . 0 8 . 201 1 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 19 .0 8 .2011 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR _________ ______ 10 . DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______