Shri Kantilal C.Shah, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-3, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 21/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8325 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: M G PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Corroborative evidences; Block assessment; Retraction
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 31/5/2011 DRAFTED ON: 01/ 06/2011 IT(SS)A NO.21/AHD/2009 BLOCK PERIOD: 1-4-1985 TO 31-3-1995 & 1-4-1995 TO 12-12-1995 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH B/5 SUMERU FLATS SABARMATI AHMEDABAD VS. THE ASST.CIT CIRCLE-3 AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AATPJ 1805 D ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.G. PATEL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.K. GUPTA, CIT-D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE W HICH HAS EMANATED FROM AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.158BC/ 143(3) R.W.S.254 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 24.12.2008 AND THE GROUNDS WHICH HAVE BEEN ARGUED BEFORE US ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1,30,700/- DURING THE YEAR 01/04/1994 TO 31/03/1995 IN RESPECT OF MARRIAGE EXPENDITURE O F DAUGHTER OF THE APPELLANT THOUGH NO EVIDENCE IN R ESPECT OF INCURRING SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS FOUND DURING THE SEA RCH. 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- DURING THE YEAR 01/04/1994 TO 31/03/1995 BY WAY OF INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 2 - MADE BY DIWALIBEN CHHOTALAL, CHHOTALAL GULABCHAND, PUKHRAJ CHHOTALAL AND KAVERIBEN PUKHRAJ TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT THOUGH INVESTMENT OF SHARES WAS NOT MADE IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT AND SOME OF THE PERSONS ARE A SSESSED TO INCOME-TAX. 3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.45,000/- BY WAY O F UNEXPLAINED HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE FOR THE BLOCK YEAR 01/04/1994 TO 31/03/1995 THOUGH NO EVIDENCE OF INCU RRING SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.20,000/- BY WAY O F INVESTMENT IN NSC FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01/04/1995 TO 12/12/1995 THOUGH NO EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SUCH IN VESTMENT FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE WAS FOUND DURING THE PERIOD SEARCH. 5. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.2,90,000/- IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT AND ADDITION OF RS.1,25,000/- IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN FURNITURE DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD 01/04/1995 TO 12/12/1995 THOUGH NO SUCH EVIDENCES WERE FOUND DURING THE SEA RCH. 2. BEFORE WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE C ASE, IT IS WORTH TO PLACE ON RECORD THAT IN THE PAST, AS WELL, THIS APPELLANT HAD GONE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND AT THAT TIME CONTEST ED THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT GRANTED. THE RESPEC TED COORDINATE BENCH HAD CONSIDERED THE SAID REQUEST OF PROVIDING A RE-HEARING , THEREFORE VIDE AN ORDER DATED 22/03/2005,IN IT(SS)A NOS.60, 61 & 62/AHD/1997 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1-4-1985 TO 12 -12-1991) TITLED AS SHRI AMBALAL K.SHAH & OTHERS VS. DY.CIT, HAD RESTORED THE IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 3 - MATTER BACK TO THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO GRANT A DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY AND TO DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT ORDER NOW UNDER APPEAL HAS BEEN PASSED FOLLOWING TH E DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. 3. FACTS IN BRIEF WERE THAT A SEARCH OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON 12/12/1995 AND DURING SEARCH OPERATION CASH, JEWELL ERY, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CERTAIN DOCUMENTS STATED TO BE PERTAINI NG TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. IN COMPLIANCE OF A NOTICE, A RETURN WAS FILED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. AS PER THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE PAST THIS APPEL LANT HAD DISCLOSED AN INCOME OF RS.2,71,194/- IN THE REGULAR COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, AS PE R THE BLOCK RETURN, AS COMPUTED U/S.158BB OF THE I.T.ACT FOR TH E BLOCK PERIOD, INCLUDED THE INCOME ALREADY DISCLOSED, THEREFORE, T HE TOTAL INCOME WAS DECLARED AT RS.3,71,194/-, RESULTANTLY, THE DIF FERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, I.E. RS.1 LAC WAS DECLARED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. IN THE PAST, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 27.12.19 96 ON THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.14,74,272/-, HOWEVER, IN THE SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONSEQUENT U PON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS A SSESSED AT RS.7,10,700/-. IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 4 - 3.1. ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR IN A COMPANY AND PARTNE R IN FEW FIRMS. THE MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME WAS DECLARED UNDER THE HE ADS, AS PROFIT FROM PARTNERSHIP-FIRM, SALARY AND INTEREST ON DEPOS IT. A STATEMENT U/S.132(4) DATED 12/12/1995 WAS RECORDED AND THE AO HAS PREPARED A CHART OF THE ADMISSION OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME AS F OLLOWS: SR. NO. DETAILS OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME AMOUNT (RS.) RELEVANT PORTION OF THE STATEMENT 1. ON-MONEY PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT 2,50,000/- ANS. TO Q.6 2. UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN FURNITURE 1,25,000/- ANS.TO Q 8 & 9 3. UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE IN MARRIAGE 1,30,700/- 4. EXPENDITURE IN MARBLE 45,000/- 5. UNACCOUNTED CASH 40,000/- ANS. TO Q.8 6. UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE 30,000/- ANS.TO Q.22 & 23 TOTAL 6,20,700/- 3.2. SINCE THE AFORESAID DISCLOSURE WAS MADE AS PER THE STATEMENT U/S.132(4) THEREFORE A SHOW-CAUSE WAS ISSUED AS TO WHY THE STATED UNDISCLOSED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,20,700/ - BE NOT ASSESSED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRA WN BY LD.AR THAT ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 19/11/1996 RETRACTED,(ANNEXED AN AFFIDAVIT DT.1.10.96), THE SAID STATEMENT WHICH WAS RECORDED U/S.132(4) DT.12.12.95 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 5 - 4. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS WORTH TO DEAL WITH THE VEHEMENT CONTENTION OF LD.AR MR.M.G.PATEL THAT NO ADDITION S HOULD HAVE BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF A STATEMENT RECORD ED U/S.132(4) WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OR INCRIMINAT ING MATERIAL DISCOVERED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. LD.AR HAS ALSO CONTESTED THAT THROUGH AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 01/10/1996 THE SAID STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED. IN THE SAID AFFIDAVIT THE DEPONENT, I .E. THE ASSESSEE HAS AFFIRMED THAT A COPY OF THE STATEMENT WAS NOT PROVI DED TO HIM DIRECTLY BUT SOMEWHERE IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER HI S BROTHER AND ONE OF HIS FRIENDS HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE SAID STATEMENT. SO, HE HAS STATED THAT ON READING THAT STATEMENT HE HAD DE CIDED TO RETRACT THE SAID INCORRECT STATEMENT ALLEGED TO BE EXTRACTED FR OM HIM UNDER PRESSURE. IT WAS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT HIS 85 YEARS OLD FATHER WAS FORCEFULLY ASKED TO COME AT THE PLACE OF SEARCH TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO STATED IN THE NAME OF GOD THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HE WAS NOT MENTALLY FIT BECAUSE TH ERE WAS AN APPREHENSION OF CANCER FOR WHICH HE WAS ADVISED TO UNDERGO BIOPSY. HOWEVER, BIOPSY WAS PERFORMED AND CANCER WAS RULED OUT. IN THE SAID AFFIDAVIT, THEREFORE, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT TH E IMPUGNED DISCLOSURE OF RS.6,20,700/- WAS FORCEFULLY OBTAINED WHICH WAS NOT AN UNACCOUNTED INCOME EARNED BY HIM, HENCE THE SAID STATEMENT WAS NOT BINDING ON HIM. LD.AR HAS READ THE SAID RETRAC TION BEFORE US, THE SALIENT FEATURES OF WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW:- IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 6 - AFFIDAVIT I, KANTILAL CHHOTALAL SHAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT B-5/SUMERU FLATS, SUKHRAM CO.OP. SOCIET Y, KABIRCCHOWK, SABARMATI, AHMEDABAD HEREBY SOLEMNLY STATE AND AFFI RM AS UNDER: THAT THERE WAS AN INCOME-TAX RAID AT MY HOUSE IN TH E MONTH OF DECEMBER, 1995 AND THE OFFICERS OF THE INCOME-TAX D EPARTMENT HAVE TAKEN MY STATEMENTS. I DO REMEMBER THAT I HAD AS KED FOR THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT WHICH WAS RECORDED BY THEM, BUT THE S AME WAS NOT GIVEN TO ME. SOMEWHERE IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, MY BRO THER PUKHRAJBHAI AND HIS FRIEND SHRI SHAILESH BHANDARI RECEIVED THE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT DU RING THE SEARCH/RAID, AT THE PLACE OF ELECTROTHERM GROUP, PU KHRAJ B.SHAH AND AT MY HOUSE ETC. ON RECEIVING THE COPY OF THE STATEME NTS I RECOLLECT THAT THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT HAD OBTAINED MY STATEMENT S WHEREIN I WAS ASKED TO DISCLOSE RS.6,25,700/- AS UNDER: (1) UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN FLAT RS.2,50,000 (2) UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN FURNITURE RS.1,25,0 00 (3) UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE IN MARRIAGE RS.1,30,70 0 (4) EXPENDITURE IN MARBLE RS. 45,000 (5) CASH FOUND RS. 30,000 (6) HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES RS. 35,000 TOTAL RS.6,25,700 ======= I AM THEREFORE AFTER READING MY SUCH STATEMENT, MAK ING THIS AFFIDAVIT WITH A CLEAR PURPOSE TO RETRACT SUCH INCORRECT STAT EMENT OBTAINED BY INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT FROM ME. I, IN THE NAME OF M Y GOD STATE THAT DURING THE RAID THE INCOME-TAX OFFICIALS HAD MADE L OT OF PRESSURE AND TACTICS AND HAD TORTURED ME. TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE, M Y FATHER WHO IS 85 YEARS OLD, AND IS STAYING SABARMATI D-CABIN WAS FOR CEFULLY ASKED TO COME TO MY HOUSE. THOUGH THEY HAD NO SEARCH WARRAN T, THEY HAD GONE TO MY FATHERS HOUSE AND FORCEFULLY BROUGHT HIM AT MY HOUSE. I WAS GRILLED AND QUESTIONED ON HUNDRED OF POINTS A ND I RECOLLECT CLEARLY THAT AN OFFICER WAS WRITING THE QUESTION AN D ANSWER ON HIS OWN AND ONLY THOSE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WHICH HE WAS T HINKING WORTH WAS WRITTEN. AS SOON AS A PAGE WAS OVER HE WAS WRITING ON THE NEXT PAGE IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 7 - AND AFTER WRITING ABOUT 10 TO 15 PAGES HE OBTAINED MY SIGNATURES ON ALL PAGES WITHOUT EVEN PERMITTING TO READ FULLY. ONLY ON THE LAST PAGE I WAS ABLE TO READ THAT THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY M E WILLINGLY AND WITHOUT ANY PRESSURE ETC., BUT THIS IS NOT THE CORR ECT STATE OF AFFAIRS. IN THE NAME OF GOD I AM ABLE TO CLARIFY THE CORRECTNES S OF THIS AFFIDAVIT BECAUSE I WAS NOT MENTALLY FIT TO GIVE CORRECT AND TRUTHFUL STATEMENT OF VARIOUS QUESTIONS. I WAS HAVING LOT OF TROUBLE IN MY NECK AND IN THE FIRST WEEK OF DECEMBER THE DOCTORS DOUBTED SOMETHING LIKE CANCER AND ADVISED ME TO DO BIOPSY. I WAS VERY MUCH NERVOUS B ECAUSE OF SUCH ADVISE AND WAS UNDER TREMENDOUS SHOCK AND IMBALANCE D MIND. AS SOON AS THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT LEFT AROUND 13 TH OR 14 TH DECEMBER, I WAS IMMEDIATELY HOSPITALIZED ON 15-12-1995 FOR 3 DAYS. EVEN TODAY I AM UNDER SEVERE MENTAL TENSION AND PRE SSURE AND AFTER DOING BIOPSY IN MY NECK THE DOUBT OF CANCER WAS RUL ED OUT. I AM STILL NOT FULLY FIT AND I AM LOOSING MY TEMPER AND CONTRO L ON ME VERY FREQUENTLY. THIS AFFIDAVIT IS MADE BY ME VOLUNTARILY TO CLARIFY THE ABOVE FACTS AND PARTICULARLY TO RETRACT THE FORCEFULLY OBTAINED DIS CLOSURE OF RS.6,25,700/- WHICH IN FACT IS NOT UNACCOUNTED INCO ME EARNED BY ME SHOWING INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS ASSETS. I HEREBY DEC LARE THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICERS ON 12 -12-1995 DOES NOT GIVE TRUE AND CORRECT REPLIES OF MY ANSWERS AND THE SAME IS NOT BINDING ON ME. WHATEVER IS STATED ABOVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT. AHMEDABAD SD/- DATED ; 1-10-1996 (KANTILAL CHHOTALAL SHAH ) SD/- (SEAL) A.M.NARMAWALA NOTARY LD.AR HAS CITED FEW DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS LEG AL PROPOSITION THAT A STATEMENT WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTE D BY ANY EVIDENCE RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERA TION AND IF LATER IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 8 - ON THAT STATEMENT HAS BEEN RETRACTED, THEN THE DIS CLOSURE MADE IN THE SAID STATEMENT MUST NOT BE MADE THE BASIS OF ASSESS MENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ALL THOSE DECISIONS HAVE DULY B EEN DISCUSSED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. HOWEVE R, ONE OF THE CITED DECISION, NAMELY RADHEY SHYAM TANWAR VS. ACIT REPORTED AT 77 TTJ 505 (JODH.) WAS ADMITTEDLY NOT A DECISION C ONNECTED WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, HENCE, HEREBY HELD AS A MISP LACED CITATION. 4.1. THE DECISION OF RAJESH JAIN VS. DY.CIT REPORTED AT 100 TTJ 929 (DELHI) WAS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.AR BUT THIS DECISION ALSO APPEARS TO BE MISPLACED PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE RE ASON THAT THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON THAT ASSESSEE ON 20 TH JULY-2000 AND THE OPERATION OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND OTHER RELEVANT M ATERIAL, SUCH AS, COMPUTER SERVER WERE EITHER SEIZED OR RESTRAINED TO OPERATE. THE RESTRAIN CONTINUED FROM JULY-2000 TO FEB-2001. TH EREUPON, ON 12 TH FEBRUARY-2001 A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF THE SAID ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED. ON THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS FOUND B Y THE RESPECTED COORDINATE BENCH THAT THE ADHOC DISCLOSURE AS PER T HE BELATED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT WAS NOT BASED UPON THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. AS AGAINST THAT, IN THE PRES ENT APPEAL, THERE WAS NO GAP BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE SEARCH AND THE STATE MENT RECORDED OF THIS APPELLANT ON 12/12/1995. AS PER THE COPY OF T HE STATEMENT U/S.132(4) IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SAME WAS RECORDED AT 12O CLOCK ON THE DAY OF SEARCH ON 12/12/1995. WE HAVE ALSO NOTI CED AN ANOTHER IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 9 - DISTINCTION THAT IN THE CITED DECISION OF SHRI RAJE SH JAIN (SUPRA) THE ALLEGED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT WAS RECORDED BY DDIT (INVESTIGATION) U/S.131 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. AS AGAINST THAT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE THE STATEMENT WHICH WAS RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT FOR THE ADDITIONS IN QUESTION WAS RECORDED U/S.132(4) O F THE I.T.ACT. HENCE, ACCORDING TO US EVEN THIS DECISION DO NOT HE LP THE ASSESSEE. 4.2. LIKEWISE THE DECISION OF SHREE CHAND SONI VS. DCIT REPORTED AT 101 TTJ 1028(JODH.) WAS ALTOGETHER ON DIFFERENT FACTS BECAUSE THE SAID STATEMENT WAS RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF AN ADDITION REGARDING BOGUS CAPITAL BUT THAT BOGUS CAPITAL WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT. RA THER THIS DECISION IS RELEVANT BECAUSE VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.44 , IT WAS OBSERVED THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE UNDER CHAPTER XIVB U NLESS ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENCES WERE FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. CERTAIN AMOUNT WERE SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THAT WHAT HAD BEEN SURR ENDERED VOLUNTARILY WAS TO BE SUSTAINED AND THE REMAINING A DDITION BEING BASED UPON ESTIMATION ALONE HELD AS UNSUSTAINABLE. OUR OBSERVATION IN THIS REGARD IS THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC CRITERI ON ABOUT THE NATURE OF AN EVIDENCE I.E. IT CAN BE IN ANY FORM VIZ. A HOUSE , A FLAT, A FURNITURE, AN EVENT, A CEREMONY IN THE FAMILY, SO AND SO FORTH , ALL DEPENDS UPON CASE TO CASE. HENCE, WE WILL FIND OUT FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT WHETHER THERE WAS ANY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE O N THE BASIS IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 10 - OF WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE OR WHETHER IMPUGNED STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT WAS SIMPLY A BALD STATEMENT. 4.3. THE DECISION OF CIT VS. SHRI RAMDAS MOTOR TRANSPORT REPORTED AT 238 ITR 177(A.P.) WAS BASICALLY ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. IN THE SAID DECI SION THE EXPLANATION INSERTED TO SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT HAS ALSO BEEN DISCUSSED AND HELD THAT FROM 01/04/1989, IT WAS PER MITTED TO RECORD A STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF ALL MATTERS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY INVESTIGATION CONNECTED WITH ANY PROCEEDINGS. ON C AREFUL PERUSAL OF THIS CITED DECISION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT DOE S NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE BUT IT HELPS THE REVENUE FOR ITS JUSTIFICA TION TO RECORD THE IMPUGNED STATEMENT. 4.4. THE DECISION OF DEEPCHAND & CO. VS. ACIT REPORTED AT 51 TTJ 421 (BOM.) WAS PLACED IN THE COMPILATION BUT LD.AR DOES NOT REFER ANY PARAGRAPH OF THIS PRECEDENT BECAUSE THE A CCEPTED FACTUAL POSITION WAS THAT IN THAT CASE THE STATEMENT WAS RE CORDED AFTER THE CONTINUOUS SEARCH OPERATION FOR MORE THAN TWO DAYS AND TWO NIGHTS AND CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HELD THAT THE SAID STATEMENT WAS NOT RECORDED WITHOUT ANY FEAR OR VOLU NTARILY. RATHER, IN THAT CASE A RETRACTION WAS FOUND TO BE DULY SUPP ORTED BY PROPER EVIDENCE. CONTRARY TO THIS, THE RETRACTION BEFORE US; AS IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 11 - REPRODUCED ABOVE; IS A GENERAL, RATHER A VAGUE, RE TRACTION AND THERE IS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE IMPUGNED STATEMENT WAS FACTUALLY WRONG. 4.5. THE DECISION OF ACIT VS. JORAWAR SINGH M. RATHOD REPORTED AT 94 TTJ 867 (AHD.) ALSO DO NOT ASSESS MUCH THIS ASSESSEE BECAUSE AS PER THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE SCIENCE HAS NOT YET INVENTED ANY INSTRUMENT TO TEST THE RELIABILITY OF THE EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE A COURT. IT WAS FURT HER OBSERVED THAT THE COURT HAS TO JUDGE ANY EVIDENCE BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMANE PROBABILITIES. THERE WAS AN ADHOC DISCLOSURE WHICH REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED, HENCE, DELETED. CONTRARY TO THIS, HERE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THERE IS NO ADHOC DISCLOSURE BUT SP ECIFIC QUESTION IN RESPECT OF A SPECIFIC ASSET/ EXPENDITURE WAS ASKED AND THEREAFTER ON ACCOUNT OF POINT-WISE ADMISSION/SURRENDER THE ADDIT IONS IN QUESTION WERE MADE. 4.6. A STRONG RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION O F HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.BHUVANENDRAN AND OTHERS REPORTED AT 303 ITR 235 (MAD.). FACTS HAVE REVEALED THAT THE SAID ASSESSEE REACHED CHENNAI AT 6.A.M. ON 19/03/1999 AND SOON AFTER HIS ARRIVAL AFTER TRAI N JOURNEY SEARCH OFFICIALS RAIDED HIS PREMISES AT 7.30 A.M. THERE W ERE TWO POLICE OFFICERS WITH GUNS ALONGWITH THE REVENUE OFFICERS. IT WAS TOLD TO IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 12 - THAT ASSESSEE THAT THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE COMPLETED SMOOTHLY HAD HE AGREED FOR THE EXISTENCE OF ON-MONE Y PAYMENT OF RS.23 LACS. UNAWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES, THE ASS ESSEE HAD ADMITTED. ON 08/02/2001, THE SAID ADMISSION WAS RETRACTED. THERE WAS A PURCHASE OF COMMERCIAL COMPLEX FOR A SU M OF RS.34 LACS, HOWEVER, OVER AND ABOVE THE SAID AMOUNT THERE WAS AN ADMISSION OF RS.23 LACS AS ON-MONEY PAYMENT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS RETRACTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY PRODUCED THE OTHER CO-OWNERS BUT HE HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE SELLERS OF THE SAID PR OPERTY FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE SAID PROPERTY. SINC E IT WAS AN ADHOC ADMISSION AND THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC MATERIAL OR EVI DENCE WAS FOUND CONSEQUENT UPON THE SEARCH FROM THE POSSESSION OF T HAT ASSESSEE OF PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SURRO UNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION WAS DIRECTED TO BE DELE TED. IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT A SURVEY WAS ALSO CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THOSE SELLERS BUT EVEN NO EVIDENCE OF O N-MONEY WAS STATED TO BE UNEARTHED. ON THESE PECULIAR CIRCUM STANCES A VERDICT WAS GIVEN BY THE HONBLE COURT, HOWEVER, AS AGAINST THAT, THERE IS NO SUCH PECULIARITY EVIDENCED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.7. A DECISION OF THIRD MEMBER AHMEDABAD ITAT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. PRAMUKH BUILDERS REPORTED AT 112 ITD 17 9 (TM)[AHD.] HAS BEEN CITED. THIS DECISION WAS DISTINGUISHED B Y THE LD.DR AND STATED THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL STATEMENTS RECORDED AND THE IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 13 - STATEMENT WAS RECORDED AFTER A GAP OF ALMOST THREE MONTHS AFTER THE SEARCH AND DISCLOSURE WAS ENHANCED. BECAUSE THOSE DISCLOSURES REMAINED UNSUPPORTED AND DID NOT CONNECT WITH ANY S PECIFIC ASSET, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, NO ADDIT ION HAD BEEN SUSTAINED. IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT, LD.DR MR. S.K. GUPTA PLEADED THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF THIS ASSESSE E WAS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN SPECIFIC ASSETS AS ALSO SOME SPE CIFIC EXPENDITURE, THEREFORE, DO NOT MATCH WITH THE FACTS OF THE SAID PRECEDENT CITED. 5. BEFORE WE PROCEED FURTHER, IT IS NECESSARY TO EX AMINE THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE I.T.ACT ON 12/ 12/1995. IN ALL, 65 QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED AND POINT WISE THOSE W ERE THOSE WERE ANSWERED BY THE ASSESSEE. AT THE END OF THE STATEME NT IT WAS CATEGORICALLY STATED QUOTE, THE ABOVE STATEMENT, R EPLIES I HAVE GIVEN WITHOUT ANY PRESSURE AND WITH MY CLEAVERITY (SIC.) & HENCE IT IS ACCEPTED TO ME AND BINDING TO ME UNQUOTE. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.1, I.E. EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE MARRIAGE OF ASSES SEES DAUGHTER, RELEVANT QUESTION WERE FROM QUESTION NO.2 1 TO QUESTION NO.26 WERE ASKED AND NOW REPRODUCED BELOW: Q.21. IN THE LAST TWO YEARS IN YOUR FAMILY ANY FU NCTION ARE COMES OUT OR NOT? A.21. IN THE YER 1994 DTD. 4.12.1994 MY DAUGHTER NA MELY MINABENS MARRIAGE FUNCTION I HAVE DONE. IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 14 - Q.22. IN MARRIAGE CEREMONY HOW MUCH TOLA ORNAMENTS YOUR HAVE GIVEN? A.22 IN MY DAUGHTERS MARRIAGE CEREMONY I HAVE GIVE N SEVEN TOTAL GOLD ORNAMENTS TO HER. Q.23 IN MARRIAGE CEREMONY HOW MUCH EXPENSES YOU HA VE DONE? A.23 IN MARRIAGE CEREMONY I HAVE DONE THE EXPENSE S AS NARRATED BELOW:- (1) 500 NOS. OF INVITATION CARD 1200/- (2) COOKS CHARGES 4000/- (3) MANDAP DECORATION EXP. 21000/- (BHAVANI DECORATORS, RAMNAGAR) (4) COOKING MATERIALS EXP. 30000/- (5) CLOTHES EXP. 25000/- (6) ICECREAM EXPENSES 7000/- (7) MISCELLANEOUS. EXP.(INCLUDING MAJURI) 19000/- (8) GOLD EXPENSES 30000/- (9) SILVER EXPENSES 500/- ------------ TOTAL EXP 130700/- Q.24. THE ABOVE MENTIONED AMOUNT OF RS.130700/- E XPENSES YOU HAVE DONE IN THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY WHETHER YOU HAVE ACCOUNTED IN THE ACCOUNTS BOOKS OR NOT? A.24 RS.1,30,700/- AMOUNTS OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES I HAVE NOT MADE ANY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THIS IS MY UNACCOUNTED INCOME. I HAVE ALSO NOT OBTAIN ANY BIL LS FROM ANY PARTY. I HAVE NO EXPLANATION REGARDING THE EXP ENSES WHICH I POSSESS AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME & I HAVE UTIL IZED IT IN MARRIAGE CEREMONY OF MY DAUGHTER. IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 15 - Q.25. IN MARRIAGE CEREMONY OF YOUR DAUGHTER HOW M ANY GUEST YOU HAVE INVITED? A.25. IN THIS MARRIAGE CEREMONY I HAVE INVITED 400 TO 500 PERSONS. Q.26. IN MARRIAGE CEREMONY HOW MANY AMOUNTS HAVE YOU HAVE RECEIVED AS CHANDLO.? A.26. IN MARRIAGE CEREMONY I HAVE RECEIVED APPROX IMATELY RS.7000/- AS A CHANDLO & I HAVE GIVEN IT FULLY TO M Y DAUGHTER. 5.1. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE STATEMENT, THE OBSERVATI ON OF THE AO WAS THAT IT WAS ACCEPTED THAT THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES WERE NOT AT ALL RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THOUGH IT WAS CONTESTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE FIGURES WERE ON ESTIMATE BUT THAT A RGUMENT WAS REJECTED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THOSE FIGURES WERE INFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AND NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE STATEMENT WAS PLACED ON RECORD. RESULTANTLY, THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.1,30,700/- WAS TAXED FOR 1994-95 OF THE BLOCK PERIOD. 5.2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE RETRACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. FIRST, WE SHALL D EAL WITH THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE RETRACTION IN THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 12/12/1995 AND ON THAT VERY DAY A STATEMENT U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT WAS RECORDED ON 12/12/1995 AT 12O CLOCK, HOWEVER, AFTER A LAPSE OF AROUND NINE IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 16 - AND A HALF MONTHS, I.E. 01/10/1996. A RETRACTION WAS MADE THROUGH AN AFFIDAVIT. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO PLACE ON REC ORD THAT THE SAID RETRACTION WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO BUT IT WAS SUBMITTED THROUGH A COVERING LETTER DATED 19/11/199 6. THIS WAS POINTED OUT BY LD.DR MR.S.K.GUPTA THAT THE RETRACT ION IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 1/10/1996 WAS KEPT WITH THE A SSESSEE FOR 1 MONTHS AND ON 19/11/1996 IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE TH E AO. ACCORDING TO HIS PLEADINGS THE SAID DELAY THUS DEMO NSTRATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONFIDENT ABOUT FILING OF THE RETR ACTION. 5.3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CONTENTS OF THE RETRACTION WHICH APPEARS TO BE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THERE IS NO SPE CIFIC MENTION OF A PARTICULAR ADMISSION WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE RETRAC TED. THERE WAS A MENTION OF ILL-HEALTH OR MENTAL DISTURBANCE. IN THE SAID RETRACTION, THERE WAS ALSO A MENTION OF SOME PRESSURE TACTICS A PPLIED BY THE REVENUE BUT REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED. THERE WAS NO REFERENCE OR MENTION OF ANY EVIDENCE. AS NOTED ABOVE, THOUGH A T THE CLOSE OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED IT WAS DULY VERIFIED THAT TH E SAME WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY PRESSURE BUT IT WAS SO ALLEGED IN THE I MPUGNED RETRACTION. HAD THERE BEEN ANY PRESSURE OR TORTUR E AS ALLEGED, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE COMPLAINED THE SAME TO THE COMM ISSIONER OR TO ANY OTHER AUTHORITY. NO SUCH ATTEMPT WAS EVER MADE. LAW IN RESPECT OF ADMISSIBILITY OF A RETRACTION IS VERY WE LL SETTLED. THERE MUST BE SOME CONVINCING AND EFFECTIVE EVIDENCE IN T HE HANDS OF THE IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 17 - ASSESSEE THROUGH WHICH HE COULD DEMONSTRATE THAT TH E SAID STATEMENT WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. AN ASSESSEE IS UNDER STRIC T OBLIGATION TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED EARLIER WAS INCORRECT, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THOSE SPECIFIC EVIDENCES LATER ON RETRACTED. FURTHER THERE SHOULD ALSO BE SOME STRONG EVIDENCE T O DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EARLIER STATEMENT RECORDED WAS UNDER COERC ION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RETRACTION IS GENERAL IN NATURE A ND LACKING ANY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE. RATHER ASSESSEE TOOK SEVER AL MONTHS TO RETRACT THE INITIAL STATEMENT, WHICH BY ITSELF CREA TED A SERIOUS DOUBT. A SIMPLE QUESTION WAS ASKED THAT WHETHER ANY MARRI AGE IN THE FAMILY HAD SOLEMNIZED AND THE ASSESSEE ON HIS OWN HAS EXPLAINED THE DETAILS OF THE MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER ALONGWI TH THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE, NAMELY EXPENDITURE ON INVITATION C ARD, MANDAP DECORATION, CLOTHS, ETC. AS PER THE PORTION OF TH E SAID STATEMENT EXTRACTED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THOSE EXPENDITURE HAVE NEVER BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN AFFIRMED THAT NO BILLS OF THOSE EXPENDITURE HAVE BE EN OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DENIAL OF THIS FACT THAT MARR IAGE HAD IN FACT SOLEMNIZED. ONCE IT WAS AN ADMITTED FACT, THEN A F ATHER OUGHT TO HAVE INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE UNDER THESE CIRCUMST ANCES, WHEN THERE WAS NO DISCLOSURE AT ALL, AND THE ONLY INFORM ATION WITH THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT WAS THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSE E RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH THEN THE STATEMENT ITSELF IS THE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. THAT STATEMENT WAS NOT VAGUE BUT VERY SPECIFIC THAT THE MARRIAGE IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 18 - WAS SOLEMNIZED ON 04/12/1994 AND IT WAS ALSO SPECI FIED THAT A SUM OF RS.1,30,700/- WERE EXPENDED DESCRIBING SEVERAL H EADS OF EXPENDITURE MENTIONED. THE ONLY ARGUMENT OF LD.AR WAS THAT APART FROM THE SAID STATEMENT NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS FOUND BUT THIS ARGUMENT HAS NO FORCE AS ALSO NO LEGAL SUPPORT BECA USE THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT WAS AN EVIDENCE BY I TSELF. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SOME OF THE MARRI AGE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED AND REST WERE AN ADHOC ESTIMATION. RATHER , THIS IS THE CASE WHERE NO EXPENDITURE AT ALL WAS FOUND RECORDED, BUT THE EVENT OF MARRIAGE WAS ACCEPTED. IF THE MARRIAGE HAD HAPPENE D THEN NATURALLY SOME EXPENDITURE BY THE FATHER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN I NCURRED, THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES WHICH WERE INFORMED BY THE FATHER WERE ADDED AS SUCH WITHOUT ANY CHANGE OR ENHANCEMENT IN THE BLOCK PERIOD. THIS ACTION OF THE REVENUE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNREASONABLE. HENCE, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 6. APROPOS GROUND NO.2, THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT HAS STATED THAT AN INVEST MENT OF RS.4 LACS IN SHARES WAS MADE. OUT OF WHICH SOME INVESTMENT WAS FOUND TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE INVESTM ENT MADE IN THE NAME OF DIWALIBEN CHHOTALAL, CHHOTALAL GULABCHAND, KUKARA CHHOTALAL, KAVERIBEN UPRAJ ETC. TOTALING TO RS.2 LA CS WAS STATED TO BE OUT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDI TION WAS MADE. IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 19 - 7. NOTHING SPECIFIC IS NOW ARGUED BEFORE US ABOUT T HE SOURCE OF THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT EXCEPT THAT THE STATEMENT R ECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT WAS RETRACTED AND THAT APART FROM THE SAID STATEMENT NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AT THE TIME O F SEARCH. 7.1. IN THIS REGARD, WE HAVE FIRST EXAMINED THE STA TEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS WERE AS UNDER: Q.31. IN YOUR NAME AS WELL AS IN YOUR FAMILY M EMBERS HOW MUCH AMOUNT YOU HAVE INVESTED IN SHARES ? A.31. I HAVE INVESTED MONEY IN SHARES ARE AS BEL OW:- (1) DIVALIBEN CHHOTALAL, (2) CHHOTALAL GULABCHAND (3) POKHRAJ CHHOTALAL (4) KIRANBEN POKHRAJ (5) SAVITABEN KANTIL AL (6) IN THE NAME OF H.U.F. AS WELL AS INDIVIDUAL NAME I HAVE IN VESTED IN SHARE BUSINESS. THE APPROXIMATELY SHARE INVESTMENT COMES TO RS.3,50 ,000/- TO 4,00,000/-. Q.32 THE ABOVE SHARE INVESTMENT AMOUNT IS NARRAT ED AND MENTIONED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR NOT? A.32 IN THE NAME OF SAVITABEN KANTILAL APPROXIM ATELY AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/- ENTRY MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. MOREOVER MY HUF AS WELL AS INDIVIDUAL THERE ARE NO ENTRY PASSES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. MOREOVER IN THE SHARE TRANSACTION MY FAMILY MEMBERS FOUR NAMES ARE THERE. THERE ARE NO ENTRY I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. APPROXIMATELY AMOUNT ARE RS.2,00,000/-. I HAVE NO EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME. IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 20 - 7.2. EVEN THIS STATEMENT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A VAG UE OR A FORMLESS STATEMENT. A SIMPLE QUESTION WAS ASKED THAT WAS THERE ANY INVESTMENT IN SHARES? AND IN COMPLIANCE THE CORRECT FACTS WERE NARRATED . IT WAS ALSO NARRATED THAT SOME OF THE IN VESTMENTS IN SHARES WERE ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE NAME OF FOUR FAMILY MEMBER S, THERE WAS NO ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THAT AMOUNT WAS FO UND TO BE RS.2 LACS AND ACCORDINGLY TAXED. LD.AR MR.M.G. PATEL HA S SIMPLY ARGUED THAT THE SAID STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED, BUT I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FURNISHED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS IN FACT COERCED OR INCORRECT IN NARRATING THE FACTS , THAT RETRACTION HAS NO LEGAL VALUE. IT WAS A BALD RETRACTION AND AN ALLE GATION OF COMPULSION OR COERCION MUST NOT BE ACCEPTED MERELY ON A STATEMENT IF REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED.. RATHER, CIRCUMSTANCE S HAVE DEMANDED THAT THIS ASSESSEE MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO GO BACK O N HIS OWN STAND WHICH HE HAD TAKEN AT THE TIME OF SEARCH BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE RATHER REVEALED THAT THE RETRACTION WAS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6,25,700/-, AS LISTED ABOVE BUT THE SAID LIST DO NOT CONTAIN THE A MOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/- IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN SHARES. THEREFORE, THE CLAUSES OF RETRACTION DO NOT COVER A T ALL THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.2 LACS. THIS IS ALSO NOT THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO SHARES AT ALL IN THE NAME OF THOSE FOUR PERSONS WERE EVER PURCHASED. THEREFORE UNDER THOSE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTA NCES THE IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 21 - REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAD NO OPTION BUT TO ASSESS THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. WE FIND NO FALLACY IN THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.2 LACS, HENCE, CONFIRM THE SAME. THIS GROUND IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 8. APROPOS GROUND NO.3, THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO WAS THAT IN THE STATEMENT ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE HOUSEH OLD EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN THE RANGE OF RS.50,000/- TO RS.60,0 00/-. BY REFERRING A CASE-LAW, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSES SEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. TO THE EXTENT OF HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL S HOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS AN INVESTMENT OF RS.45,000/- IN MARBLE. ONCE AN INVESTMENT WAS WITNE SSED BY THE SEARCH PARTY AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY SOURCE OF THE SAID INVESTMENT THEN A DEPONENT MUST NOT BE EXCUSED OF HIS OWN OFFER. ON HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SI DES, EVEN IN RESPECT OF THIS AMOUNT WE HAVE NOTICED THAT NO SUPP ORTING EVIDENCE EITHER ABOUT THE SOURCE OR ABOUT THE NON-EXISTENCE OF THE SAID ASSET WAS PLACED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE , THE ADDITION IS HEREBY AFFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9 . APROPOS GROUND NO.4 , THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO WAS THAT WHILE EXPLAINING THE CASH OF RS.45,700/- FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT A SUM OF RS.20,120/ - WAS RECEIVED FROM ENCASHMENT OF N.S.C. TAKEN DURING TH E IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 22 - A.Y. 1989-90. REGARDING BALANCE AMOUNT, THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT WAS A SAVINGS OUT OF THE WITHD RAWALS AS A PARTNER. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE EVI DENCE BUT NO PROOF OF SUCH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT I N THE FIRM WAS RENDERED THEREFORE AFTER GRANTING A PART RELIEF, A SUM OF RS.20,000/- WAS TAXED. THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECI FIC THAT THE CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. RATHER, HE HAS STATED THAT THE SAID CASH WAS OUT OF HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND THERE WAS NO ENTRY IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ONLY EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT OUT OF TH E SAID SUM AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,120/- WAS OUT OF THE ENCASHMENT OF N.S.C. TAKEN DURING THE AY 1989-90 OF THE BLOCK PERIOD. THAT E XPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND THE BALANCE RS. 20,000/- WAS TAXED. ACCORDING TO US, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN GR ANTING THE RELIEF IN RESPECT OF THE ENCASHMENT AMOUNT OF NSC AND THE BAL ANCE AMOUNT WAS RIGHTLY TAXED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT, ADMITTED LY WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. RATHER THIS GROUND IS NOT SE RIOUSLY CONTESTED, THEREFORE, WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE ADDITIO N AND THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 10. APROPOS GROUND NO.5, THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT ABOUT TH E PAYMENT OF ON- MONEY OF RS.2,90,000/- ON PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL F LATS. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AMOUNT WHIC H WAS PAID IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 23 - THROUGH CHEQUE WAS REASONABLE AND AS PER THE PREVAI LING MARKET RATE WHEN IT WAS BOOKED IN THE YEAR 1993. AN ADDITION O F RS.2,90,000/- WAS MADE WHICH IS NOW CONTESTED BEFORE US. 10.1. ARGUMENT OF LD.AR IS PRIMARILY TWO FOLDS, FIR ST, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY RETRACTED THE SAID STATEMENT T HEREFORE THE SAID STATEMENT WAS WRONGLY RELIED UPON AS ALSO MADE THE BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF RETRACTION HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS AND WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE RETRACTION WAS NECESSITATED; THAT TOO ON THE BASIS OF SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAV E TAKEN A VIEW THAT SUCH A RETRACTION BEING GENERAL IN NATURE WAS NOTHING BUT A BALD RETRACTION AND THEREFORE HAS NO FORCE IN THE EYES O F LAW. LD.ARS SECOND PLANK OF ARGUMENT IS THAT NO ADDITION UNDER CHAPTER XIV B BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF A STATEMENT. IT WAS ARGUED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL NO ADDITI ON IS WARRANTED IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT. 10.1.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THIS ARGUMENT CAREFU LLY. ACCORDING TO US, FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE REVEALED THAT WHEN T HE SEARCH PARTY VISITED THE ASSESSEES RESIDENTIAL PREMISES ON 12/1 2/1995, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RESIDING IN A FLAT, THE REFORE, ON THAT VERY DAY IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER CERTAIN QUESTIONS WERE ASKED: IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 24 - Q. 5. INFORM WHETHER YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS ARE HOLD ING IN THEIR MOVABLE AS WELL AS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OR NOT? A.5 IN THE ABUNAGAR SOCIETY, NR.D.CABIN, MY FATHER IS HOLDING ONE BUILDING WHICH WAS GIVEN ON RENTED. MY WIFE SAVITABEN IS ALSO HOLDING ONE APARTMENT IN SUMERU A PARTMENT BLOCK N: C-12. MY MOTHER NAMELY DIWALIBEN IS ALSO HOLDING ONE APAR TMENT BLOCK NO:B-5 AT SUMERU APARTMENT, WHERE I AM LIVING WITH HER. Q.6. YOU HAVE PURCHASED APARTMENT IN THE NAME OF YOUR WIFE AS WELL AS YOU HAVE ALSO PURCHASED ONE APARTMENT IN YO UR MOTHERS NAME. INFORM THE PURCHASING COST INDIVIDUALLY. A.6. IN THE SUMERU APARTMENT BLOCK NO: C-12 IS IN T HE NAME OF SAVITABEN KANTILAL. THIS BLOCKS TOTAL COST OF PUR CHASING PRICE IS RS.3,25,000/- OUT OF WHICH RS.2,00,000/- I HAVE GI VEN BY CHEQUE AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.1,25,000/- I HAVE GIVEN BY CASH. IN BLOCK NO: B-5, IN SUMERU APARTMENT IN THE NAME O F DIWALIBEN CHOTALAL. ITS TOTL COST OF PURCHASING PRICE IS RS. 3,25,000/- OUT OF WHICH I HAVE GIVEN IT BY CHEQUE AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,0 00/- AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.1,25,000/- I HAVE GIVEN IT B Y CASH TRANSACTION. I HAVE ALSO GIVEN RS.40,000/- CASH FO R THE MARBLE CONSTRUCTION SEPARATELY. Q.7. FOR BLOCK NO:B-5 AND C-12 WHICH YOU HAVE GIVEN IT BY CASH TRANSACTION WORTH OF RS.2,50,000/- (BOTH THE BLOCK ) WHETHER YOU HAVE MADE ANY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF A/C. OR CAN YOU INFORM THE MONEY WHEN YOU HAVE PAID BY CASH ? A.7. IN THE YEAR 1994 I HAVE GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,50 ,000/- IN CASH. THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . I HAVE ALSO NOT ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SAME. I HAVE GIVEN THIS AMOUNT WHICH ARE UNACCOUNTED INCOME & I HAVE NO AN Y OTHER EXPLANATION OVER IT. IN THE BLOCK I HAVE CONSTRUCT ED IN THE MARBLE AND ITS COST COMES TO RS.40 TO RS.45 THOUSAND. THI S CASH TRANSACTION I HAVE NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF A/ C. & THERE WILL IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 25 - BE NO ENTRY OF THIS AMOUNT. THIS INCOME IS ALSO MY INCOME WHICH ARE UNACCOUNTED INCOME & NO ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 10.2. THEREFORE, THE EVIDENCE OR THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS THE ASSET ITSELF I.E. FLATS. THE EVIDENCES AS PHYSICAL LY PRESENT WERE THE FLATS, WHICH WERE VERY MUCH FOUND AND DETECTED BY T HE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. ONLY IN CONSEQUENCE OF SEARCH OPERATION IT HAD COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD BOUGHT TWO FLATS. IT IS THEREFORE WRONG ON THE PART OF THE LD.AR TO ARGUE THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WAS F OUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. IN OUR OPINION, PRESENCE OF FLATS WAS A GLARING AND APPARENT EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF IMMOVABLE ASSET WH ICH WAS FOUND UNRECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE . NEXT COMES THE QUESTION ABOUT THE ON-MONEY AND THAT TOO WAS AC CEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. HE WAS VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT TH E MODE AND THE MANNER OF PAYMENTS MADE I.E. A PORTION THROUGH CHEQ UES AND REST PORTION OF PAYMENT MADE IN CASH. THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THOSE FLATS DID NOT EXIST AT ALL OR D ID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. THE EXISTENCE OF BOTH THE FLATS WERE NOT DENIED AND IT WAS ACCEPTED THAT IN ADDITION TO THE PAYMENT THROUGH CH EQUES SOME AMOUNT WAS PAID IN CASH WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY NOT RE CORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN THE DECLARATION WAS SPECIFIC AND NO AMBIGUITY WAS LEFT WHILE MAKING THE SAID DECLARATION, THE AO HAD NO OPTION BUT TO ASSESS THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 26 - 10.3. THE QUESTION OF EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF A STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA . WHEN AN ASSESSEE HAD MADE A STATEMENT OF FACTS, HE CAN HAVE NO GRIEVANCE IF HE IS TAXED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT STATEMENT. THE REASONABLENESS OF THE AOS APPROACH, AS APPRECIATED BY US, IS THAT HE HAD NOT MADE ANY ENHANCEMENT OR SUBSTITUTION IN THE AMOUNTS AS O FFERED/DISCLOSED IN THE SAID STATEMENT. IT WAS A STATEMENT PERTAINI NG TO CERTAIN FACTS WHICH WERE IN THE EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESS EE. THOSE FACTS WERE DISCLOSED TO THE REVENUE DEPTT. THEREUPON THOS E WERE ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THOSE FACTS WE RE OF SUCH NATURE THAT THERE WAS NO SCOPE OF EXISTENCE OF ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. AFFIRMATION OF FACTS AT BEST CAN ONLY BE DONE BY TH E ASSESSEE IN HIS OWN VOLITION. IF THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO CORRECT THE SAID STATEMENT, THEN IT WAS OPEN FOR HIM TO SHOW THE EV IDENCES TO RETRACT THOSE FACTS. BUT NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED THOUGH AN ANOTHER CHANCE WAS GRANTED BY THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE R ESTORING THE ENTIRE ISSUES BACK TO THE ASSESSMENT STAGE WHICH ME ANS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO EVIDENCE AT ALL IN HIS POSSESSION. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT THE STATUTE PRESCRIBES THE POWER TO TH E REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR RECORDING A STATEMENT ON THE DAY OF SEARCH OPERATION. IN THIS CONTEXT, LD.AR HAS CITED FEW DECISIONS WHER EIN THERE WAS A DISCUSSION OF RETRACTION OF A STATEMENT OR THE LEGA L SANCTITY OF STATEMENT IN THE EYES OF INCOME-TAX LAWS. WE WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 27 - THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN A STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER THE PROCEEDINGS CARRIED OUT U/S.133A OF THE ACT. AS PER SECTION 133A(3)(III) OF THE ACT IT ENABLES THE AUTHORITY TO RECORD THE STATEMEN T OF ANY PERSON, BUT IT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE TO TAKE ANY SWORN STATEM ENT. THE INCOME- TAX ACT, WHEREVER THOUGHT FIT AND NECESSARY HAS CO NFERRED SUCH POWERS TO EXAMINE A PERSON ON OATH. THOSE POWERS AR E THEREFORE HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY PROVIDED. IN THIS CONTEXT SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT ENABLES AN AUTHORISED OFFICER TO EXAMINE A PERSON O N OATH. SUCH A SWORN STATEMENT MADE U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT, THUS CAN BE USED AS AN EVIDENCE UNDER THE ACT. IF WE COMPARE AN ANOTHER PROVISION IN THIS REGARD THEN THE INCOME TAX ACT PRESCRIBES ISSUE OF SUMMONS U/S.131 TO A PERSON CONCERNED FOR HIS APPEARANCE AN D ALSO FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. THIS SECTION, I.E. 131(1 )(B) OF THE ACT CAN ENFORCE THE ATTENDANCE OF ANY PERSON AS ALSO TO EXA MINE HIM ON OATH. BUT THE LAW FURTHER SAYS THAT A STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.131(1) AFTER THE ISSUE OF SUMMONS CANNOT BE USED AS AN EVI DENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. A STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.131 OF THE ACT HAS A FAR REACHING CONSEQUENCE BECAUSE IF IT IS PROVED TO BE FALSE WHICH THE ASSESSEE ONLY KNOWS OR BELIEVES TO BE FALSE OR THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE, THEN THE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT HE SHALL BE PUNISHABLE UNDER THE ACT AND PROSECUTION PROCEEDING S CAN BE AUTHORISED. IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 28 - 10.4. IN THIS REGARD, FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVE NUE AN IMPORTANT DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH IN T HE CASE OF ACIT VS. HUKUMCHAND JAIN REPORTED AT 191 TAXMANN 319 HAS BEEN WHEREIN AND IT WAS HELD THAT IF AN ALLEGATION OF D URESS OR COERCION WAS MADE ALMOST AFTER TWO YEARS, THEN SUCH ALLEGATI ON HAS TO BE OVERRULED. 10.5. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DETAILED DELIBERAT IONS, WE HEREBY DRAW A CONCLUSION THAT IN VIEW OF THE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT WHICH WAS RECORDED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH HAD EVIDENTIARY VALUE, THEREFORE, THE EXISTENCE OF THE ON-MONEY OUGHT NOT TO BE RULED OUT. THE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT BEING RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE I.T.ACT AND ALSO BEING CORROBORATED BY THE PHYSICAL PRESENCE OF FLATS, THEREFORE, RIGHTLY RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND CORRECTLY MADE THE BASIS FOR THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF ON-MONEY. T HE RETRACTION BEING GENERAL AND VAGUE, THEREFORE, DESERVES TO BE IGNORED. WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE ADDITION AND THIS GROUND IS DISM ISSED. 11 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24 TH JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( D.C. AGRAWAL) ( MUKUL KR. SH RAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R AHMEDABAD; DATED 24/ 6 /2011 T.C. NAIR, SR. PS IT(SS)A NO.21/A HD/2009 SHRI KANTILAL C.SHAH VS. ASST.CIT BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.85 TO 31.3.95 & 1.4.95 TO 12.12.95 - 29 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION..31.5.2011 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 1.6.2011 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 24.6.11 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 24.6.11 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER