SHRI BHARATKUMAR BANTHIA ALIAS JAIN, MUMBAI V. THE ACIT CEN CIR-1, THANE

ITSSA 264/MUM/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7852 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2006
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C MAURYA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Source of fund; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Block assessment
• Section: 131; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN(J.M) & SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (A.M) IT(SS)A 264/MUM/2006 (BLOCK PERIOD 1/4/1995 TO 11/12/2011) BHARATKUMAR BANTHIA ALIAS JAIN, 602, SUPARSHVA TOWER, VENTAKESH PARK, 60 FT. ROAD, BAYANDER (W), MUMBAI. PAN: AHBPB 2501M (APPELLANT) VS. THE ACIT , CEN.CIR.1, THANE. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI FARROKH IRANI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.C.MAURYA DATE OF HEARING : 27/12/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/1 2/2011 ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, J.M, THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 19/9/2006 OF CIT(A)-1, THANE RELATING TO THE BLOCK PERIOD 1 /4/1995 TO 11/12/2001. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS FOLLOWS : 1.A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,09,643/ - MADE BY THE A0 TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN STOCK OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. B) THE ID. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APP ELLANT HAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF T HE STOCK OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. C) IN REACHING TO THE CONCLUSION AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, THE LD. CIT(A) OMITTED TO CONSIDER RELEVANT FACTORS, CONSIDERATIONS, PRINCIPLES AND EVIDENCES WHILE HE W AS OVERWHELMED, INFLUENCED AND PREJUDICED BY IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATI ONS AND FACTORS. IT(SS)A 264/MUM/2006 2 2. THE ASSESEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN T HE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN GOLD ORNAMENTS IN THE NAME OF M/S. MANIBHADRA OR NAMENTS AS PROPRIETOR. THE BLOCK PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS 1-4-1995 TO 11-12-2001. A SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT ON 11-12-2001 AT THE SHOP PREMISES OF M/S.B. M. JEWELLERS, BANGLORE. IN THE COURSE OF TH IS SEARCH, SHRI LABDHI S. SIROYA., BROTHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE, VISITED TH E SHOP PREMISES OF M/S.B. M. JEWELLERS WITH A BAG CONTAINING 3 167.300 GRAMS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. ON BEING ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE GOLD ORNAMENTS BY THE SEARCH PARTY IT WAS EXPLAINED BY SHRI LABDHI S. SIR OYA THAT THE GOLD ORNAMENTS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAD VISIT ED THE SHOP PREMISES OF M/ S. B. M. JEWELLERS FOR APPROVAL SALE OF GOLD ORN AMENTS. HOWEVER, THE GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT FROM THE PO SSESSION OF SHRI LABDHI S. SIROYA. PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BD OF THE AC T WERE INITIATED AGAINT THE ASSESSEE. IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE U/S. 158BD, T HE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON 13-2-2004 SHOWING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. NIL. AN ORDER OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT U /S.158BC R.W.S 158BD, THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , THANE (I.E. THE AO) FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WAS PASSED IN WHICH AN ADDITION OF RS.13,09,613/- TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF A LLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD ORNAMENTS U/S. 69A OF THE ACT WA S MADE. 3. IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO CALL ED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE GOLD ORNAM ENTS SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE APPROACHED M/S. SANCHETI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.(SJPL) OF 21/23, DHANJI STREET, SHOP NO.11 B, MUMBAI 400 003 TO BUY GOLD ORNAMENTS FOR SELLING THE SAME IN BANGALOR E SINCE THERE WAS GOOD DEMAND IN BANGALORE FOR GOLD ORNAMENTS MANUFACTURED IN MUMBAI. THE IT(SS)A 264/MUM/2006 3 ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED GOLD ORNAMENTS W EIGHING 3703.680 GRAMS FROM M/S.SJPL AS DETAILED HEREUNDER:- DATE BILL NO. WEIGHT(GM) VALUE(RS.) 6/12/01 222 1890.600 7,86,489/- 8/12/01 224 1813.080 7,54,241/- TOTAL 3703.680 15,40,730/- THE COPY OF THE ABOVE BILLS ARE AT PAGE 27 AND 28 O F THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SHRI LABDHI S. SIROYA, HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW WENT TO BANGALORE FOR SELLING THE GOLD ORNAMENTS ON 10/12/2 001. SHRI LABDHI S. SIROYA FIRST WENT TO M/S. MANGAL JEWELLERS OF BANGA LORE AND DELIVERED GOLD ORNAMENTS OF 467.670 GMS. FOR APPROVAL AND SELECTIO N. THEREAFTER, HE WENT TO SHOP PREMISES OF M/S. B.M.JEWELLERS ALONGWITH GO LD ORNAMENTS OF 3167.300 GRAMS WHERE THE DEPARTMENT SEIZED THESE GO LD ORNAMENTS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT NOT ONLY WAS THE GOLD ORNAMENTS SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH BUT THE FOLLOWING DOCU MENTS WERE ALSO SEIZED FROM THE POSSESSION OF MR. LABDHI S. SIROYA. 1. PAGE NO.8 SHOWING DETAILS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS WEIGHIN G 3660.480 GMS. CARRIED BY SHRI LABDHI S. SIROYA. 2. PAGE NO.7 BEING APPROVAL MEMO OF M/S. MANIBHADRA OR NAMENTS SHOWING GOLD ORNAMENTS WEIGHING 3660.480 GMS. CARR IED BY SHRI LABADHI S. SIROYA. 4. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TO THE AO THAT IN THE C OURSE OF SEARCH AT BANGALORE, HE WAS SUMMONED AND HE WAS ASKED TO EXPL AIN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF THE GOLD JEWELLERY SEIZED FRO M SHRI LABDHI S. SIROYA. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A STAND THAT THE STOCK OF JE WELLERY HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY HIM ON CREDIT FROM M/S. SJPL. THE ASS ESSEE ALSO PRODUCED ORIGINAL BILLS BEARING NO.222 DATED 6/12/2001 AND 2 24 DATED 8/12/2001. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSE E WAS AGAIN SUMMONED IT(SS)A 264/MUM/2006 4 AND THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHEREIN , THE QUANTUM OF GOLD JEWELLERY SEIZED AT BANGALORE HAD BEEN DULY RECORDE D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AO THEREAFTER ISSUED SUMMONS U/S. 1 31 TO M/S. SJPL. ONE MR. VIMAL SANCHETI , DIRECTOR OF M/S. SJPL APPEARE D BEFORE THE AO. MR. VIMAL SANCHETI CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS AS CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HOWEVER COULD NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S. SJPL AS THEY WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN WASHED OUT IN HEAVY RAINS. HO WEVER, A COPY OF THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTIO N 44AB OF THE ACT WAS FILED. 5. THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. SJPL WAS NOT EST ABLISHED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. (1) NO PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TILL DATE FOR THE PUR CHASES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM M/S. SANCHETI JEWELLERYS PVT LT D. MUMBAI. (2) NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE WITH M/S . SANCHETI JEWELLERYS PVT LTD FOR THE TRANSACTION. (3) AS ADMITTED DY THE ASSESSEE, THIS WAS THE FIRST TRANSACTION WITH M/S. SANCHETI .JEWELLERYS PVT LTD, MUMBAI, STILL NO PAYMENT WAS ASKED FOR BY THE SAID MIS. SANCHETI JAWELLERYS PVT LTD, MUMBAI. (4) AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ON 11/1 2/2001, NO PURCHA SE BILL WAS WITH THE ASSESSEE. (5) HYDERABAD POLICE HAD SEIZED 9060.200 GMS OF GOL D ORNAMENTS FROM THE ASSESSEE IN SEPTEMBER, 2004 BECAUSE HE HAD NO D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF GOLD. THE ASSESEE W AS ALSO ARRESTED BY THE POLICE. MAJOR PART OF GOLD SEIZED BY THE PO LICE HAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PURCHASE FROM SANCHETI JEWELLERS ON CREDIT BASIS. EVIDENCES GATHERED BY THE INV. WING HYDERABAD SHOWE D THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY VISITING HYDERABAD BETWEEN F EBRUARY, 2004 TO SEPTEMBER, 2005 AND WAS STAYING THERE FOR 2 DAYS EV ERY MONTH. HOWEVER, NO SALES WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HIS REGARD. THIS IT(SS)A 264/MUM/2006 5 GOES TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE REGULARLY INDULGING IN THE UNACCOUNTED TRADING IN GOLD ORNAMENTS. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS THE AO TREATED AS ITS SOURCE OF GOLD VALUED AT RS. 13,09,642.80 AS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADDITION OF AFORESAID SUM AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTI ON 69A OF THE ACT WAS ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: NOW THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO THE AUTHENCITY OF TH E PURCHASE BILLS AND WHETHER PAYMENT WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF GOLD JEWELLE RY FOUND AND SEIZED. THE FACT REMAINS THAT SANCHETY JEWELLERS HA VE ADMITTED SELLING JEWELLERY TO THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THEY COULD NOT PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM, AS TH EY STATED THAT THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE WASHED AWAY IN FLOOD W ATERS. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, THE APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED IN HIS STATEM ENT THAT THE SAID GOLD JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED BY HIM FROM SANCHETY A ND THAT SALE WAS ON APPROVAL BASIS. THE A.O HAS RIGHTLY QUESTIONED T HE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR THE SAID JEW ELLERY AS THE APPELLANT DID NOT BRING ON RECORD SUFFICIENT EVIDEN CE TO SHOW THAT HE DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT FOR THE SAID PURCHASE. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW IF ANY GUARANTEE WHA TSOEVER WAS GIVEN TO SANCHETY JEWELLERS FOR SUCH HUGE AMOUNT OF JEWEL LERY. A PERUSAL OF THE PURCHASE BILLS FILED BY THE APPELLANT DOES NOT MENTION ANYTHING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PURCHASE IS ON APPROVAL BASIS. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A SEPARATE APPROVAL MEMO DATED 11.12.01 WHICH IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATES OF THE PURCHASE BILLS. EVEN IN THIS APPRO VAL MEMO, IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT MR. SIROIYA OF M/S MANIBHADA RA ORNAMENTS IS CARRYING SOME GOLD ORNAMENTS WEIGHING 3600.480 GMS. IT IS FURTHER STATED AS UNDER: TILL THE FINAL APPROVAL THE WHOLE LOT OF GOLD ORNA MENTS STRICTLY BELONGS TO M/S MANIBHADRA ORNAMENTS, 5, MALHARRAO W ADI, 2ND FLOOR, SHOP NO. 36, DADYSHETH AGIARY LANE, KALBADEV I ROAD, MUMBAI 400 002. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ENTIRE GOLD ORNAMENTS WHICH WAS GIVEN BY HIM TO HIS AGENT WHO IT(SS)A 264/MUM/2006 6 WAS FOUND IN POSSESSION OF GOLD JEWELLERY. THE ASSE SSEE CANNOT NOW TAKE A CONTRADICTORY STAND THAT HE RECEIVED THIS JE WELLERY FROM SANCHETY JEWELLERS, AS DOCUMENTS EVIDENCE OTHERWISE . EVEN THE WEIGHT OF THE JEWELLERY IS VARYING AT VARIOUS PLACES. IN V IEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND REASONS, I DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE APP ELLANTS PLEA. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE AND REITERATED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AS WAS PUT FORTH BEFORE TH E CIT(A). IN THIS REGARD WE MAY MENTION THAT BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS GIV EN EXPLANATION FOR EACH OF THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE AO AGAINST THE ASSES SEE IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. THESE SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE CI T(A) ARE AT PAGES 1 TO 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IN PARTICULAR THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO HAVE BEEN MET AT PAGES 6 TO 9 ( POINT 2(VIII) OF THE SUBMISSIONS BEF ORE CIT(A) ). THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS FA R AS THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID PAYMENTS F OR THE GOLD ORNAMENTS PURCHASED FROM M/S. SJPL WE FIND THAT IT WAS A CRED IT SALE. M/S. SJPL HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED THE FACT THAT GOLD ORNAMENTS WERE SO LD BY THEM ON CREDIT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE NEXT OBJECTION WAS THE ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH M/S. SJPL FOR THE TRANSACTION. AS F AR AS THIS OBJECTION IS CONCERNED THE PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SUPPOR TED BY PROPER SALES BILLS ISSUED BY M/S. SJPL. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE A SSESSEE CONTAINS ENTRIES REGARDING THESE PURCHASES. M/S. SJPL HAVE PRODUCE D BEFORE THE AO COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS APPEARING IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND A COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT U/S. 44AB OF THE AC T FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. IN OUR VIEW THIS OBJECTION RAISED BY THE AO IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IT(SS)A 264/MUM/2006 7 THE NEXT OBJECTION OF THE AO WAS THAT SINCE IT WAS A FIRST TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. SJPL THE SALE COULD N OT HAVE BEEN MADE ON CREDIT BY M/S. SJPL. IN OUR VIEW IN THE LIGHT OF T HE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CREDIT SALE BY M/S. SJPL THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE AO HAVE TO BE TAKEN AS PURELY BASED ON SURMISES. THE LAST OBJECTION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE HYDERABAD POLICE HAD SEIZED 9060.200 GRAMS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS FROM THE ASSESSEE IN SEPTEMBER 2004 BECAUSE HE HAD NOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF GOLD. ON THIS ALLEGATION AT THE OUTSE T WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS INCIDENT HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE GOLD JEWEL LERY WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED IN THIS APPEAL. APART FROM THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD MOVED THE METROPOLITAN COURT, HYDRABAD FOR RELEASE OF THE GOL D ORNAMENTS AND THE HONBLE COURT WAS PLEASED TO ACCEPT THE OWNERSHIP O F GOLD ORNAMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELEASED THE SAME. THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS VISITING HYDERABAD REGULARLY BUT NO SALES IN H YDERABAD WERE RECORD IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURING THE PERIOD FEB.2004 TO SEPT. 2005 HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN D ETAILS OF SALES MADE IN HYDERABAD AS RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS BETWEEN THE PERI OD 29/4/2004 TO 24/3/2005. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL TO THE CONTRARY. IN ANY EVENT THIS IS A GENERAL ALLEGATION AND HAS NO RELEV ANCE TO THE CONCLUSIONS TO BE ARRIVED AT IN THE PRESENT CASE. 9. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PROCEEDED ON TH E SAME LINES ON WHICH THE AO HAS DRAWN HIS CONCLUSION. THE CIT(A) HAS GO NE ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED OWNERSHIP OF THE GOLD JEWELL ERY. IN FACT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE GOLD JEWELLERY. IT WAS ONLY THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE GO LD JEWELLERY THAT WAS IN DISPUTE. IN OUR VIEW THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD CLEARL Y SHOW THAT THE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. MOREOVER THE Q UANTITY OF GOLD FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IS FOUND DULY RECORDED IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE IT(SS)A 264/MUM/2006 8 ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION U/S. 69A OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVISIONS WILL COME INTO PLAY ONLY WHEN THE JEWELL ERY IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. EVEN ON THIS BASIS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES DESERVES TO BE DELETED. FOR THE REASON S GIVEN ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,09,643/- DESERVES TO BE DEL ETED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 10. GROUND NO.2 IS WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF PROC EEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION IN VIEW OF THE CONCLUSION ON GROUND NO.1 GIVEN BY US AS ABOVE. GROUND NO.3 R EGARDING INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPEALABLE. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 30 TH DAY OF DEC. 2011. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR ) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED. 30 TH DEC.2011 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.RB BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM. IT(SS)A 264/MUM/2006 9 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 28/12/2011 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 28/12/2011 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 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER