V Dayakar Rao, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Hyderabad

ITSSA 28/HYD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1904 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-03-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KURMI NAIDU
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Search and seizure; Source of fund
• Section: 133A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A. NO. 28/HYD/2009 BLOCK PERIOD : 1986-87 TO 1996-97 V. DAYAKAR RAO, HYDERABAD [PAN: ACCPV7498M] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-9(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI B. KURMI NAIDU, DR DATE OF HEARING : 24-03-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 -05-2016 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE, WHO IS A PARTN ER OF M/S. PADMAVATHI OIL PRODUCERS, WARANGAL. BRIEFLY STATED, T HE REVENUE CONDUCTED SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS ON 31-01-1996 AT THE PREMISES OF THE SAID PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSEQUENT TO SUR VEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT. THE AO INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S. 1 58BD IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HEREIN. THE AO ORIGINALLY COMPLET ED ASSESSMENT U/S. 158BD ON 31-01-1997 DETERMINING THE TOTAL UNDISCL OSED INCOME AT RS. 91,51,650/-. ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL B EFORE THE ITAT. HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY WA S NOT GIVEN TO ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 2 -: AO. IN THE PROCEEDINGS THERETO, ASSESSEE FILED DETAI LED WRITTEN EXPLANATIONS. AO DID NOT ACCEPT ANY OF THE CONTENTIONS R AISED AND RE-DETERMINED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 91,50,130/- . WHILE DOING SO, HE MADE SAME ADDITIONS AS WERE MADE AT THE TIME OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF AS SESSMENT, ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 2. CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH OPERATIONS ON 31-01-1996, ASSE SSEE HAD FILED RETURN FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON 06-12-1996 A DMITTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 4,00,000/- AS UNDER: AY. TOTAL INCOME RETURNED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME U NDISCLOSED INCOME 1986 - 87 TO 1991-92 NIL NIL NIL 1992 - 93 4,44,400 44,400 4,00,000 1993 - 94 NIL NIL NIL 1994 - 95 NIL NIL NIL 1995 - 96 NIL NIL NIL 1996 - 97 NIL NIL NIL TOTAL: 4,00,000 3. SINCE DIRECT APPEAL WAS PROVIDED TO ITAT AT THAT TIM E, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS, UNJUST AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE; 2. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT WITHIN TIME PROVIDED UNDER THE I.T. ACT. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THER E IS ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING ITEM S AND FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS ARE TO BE TR EATED AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC.158BC ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 3 -: 1) OPENING CASH BALANCE - RS.1,51,241/- 2) GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT HEREIN- RS.6,07 ,852/- ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 1) INVESTMENTS IN USHODAYA OIL PRODUCERS - RS. 5,21 ,180/- 2) INVESTMENT IN BALAJI OIL PRODUCERS - RS. 20,000/- 3) INVESTMENTS IN CHITS - RS. 13,850/- ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 1) INVESTMENTS IN SHARES OF USHODAYA AGRO PRODUCTS - RS.23,85,000/- 2) INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY - RS. 8, 17,741/ - 3) INVESTMENTS IN CHITS - RS. 85,000/- 4) INVESTMENTS IN PLOTS AT SHIVNAGAR AND FORT ROAD, WARANGAL - RS. 1,48,040/- ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 1) INVESTMENTS IN SHARES OF USHODAYA AGRO PRODUCTS - RS.13,00,000/- 2) INVESTMENT IN CHITS - RS. 19,750/- 3)INVESTMENTS IN PLOTS AT FORT ROAD, WARANGAL - RS.5,16,800/- 3) INVESTMENT IN PADMAVATHI COTTON CORPORATION - RS. 35,000/- ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 1) INVESTMENTS IN SHARES OF USHODAYA AGRO PRODUCTS - RS.11,51,000/- 2) INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OR PROPERTY - RS.14,22, 071/- IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 4 -: 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN ARRIVING AT A TOT AL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.91,50, 130/- GROUND NOS. 1 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. 3.1 AS FAR AS THE GROUND NO. 2 REGARDING ORDER BEIN G TIME BARRED WAS NOT PRESSED. 3.2 GROUND NO. 3 IS WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS ADDITIONS M ADE BY AO IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE BLOCK. THESE AR E CONSIDERED YEAR WISE AMOUNT WISE AS UNDER: AY 1992-93: 3.3 ASSESSEE FILED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS. THE OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 1,51,241/- FOR AY. 1992-93 CLAIMED IN THAT STATEMENT WAS DISBELIEVED BY THE AO AND W AS TREATED AS INCOME. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE RETU RN OF INCOME FOR THE AY. 1992-93 WAS FILED ON 31-03-1994. IN THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, A NOTE WAS LEFT MENTIONING THAT THERE W ERE CASH GIFTS AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF RS. 90,251/-. IT WAS STATED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS CIRCULATED AMONG CLOSE FRIENDS AND RE LATIVES ON SIMPLE INTEREST AND THAT THE CLOSING CASH ON HAND AND B ANK WAS TREATED AS RS. 4,90,496/-. THE SAME AMOUNT OF RS. 4, 90,496/- WAS SHOWN IN THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT FILED D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE FACTS WERE ALREADY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BEFORE THE SEARCH. NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,51,241 /-. THE ADDITION DOES NOT EMANATE FROM SEARCH MATERIAL. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SOURCE OF INCOME UPTO 31-03-1 991 AND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,51,241/- COULD HAVE BEEN ACCUM ULATED IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 5 -: FROM OUT OF THE SAID SOURCE. THIS FACT WAS ACCEPTED B Y THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ON 31-01-1997 . 3.4. AS FAR AS ADDITION MADE BY AO FOR GIFTS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FOR RS. 6,07,852/-, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ON THE OC CASION OF THE MARRIAGE, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4,00,000/- IS CONCERNE D, THE SAME WAS ADMITTED BY ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. 3.5. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT GIFTS RECEIVED BY WIFE OF ASSESSEE SMT. UMA OF RS. 2,03,460/- WERE ADMITTED BY HER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 158B D. THE SAME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF ASSESS EE. AY. 1993-94: 4. AO MADE AN ADDITION FOR INVESTMENTS IN USHODAYA OIL PRODUCERS FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5,21,180/- WHICH CON SISTS OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: I) RS. 2 LAKHS INVESTED BY SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM USHODAYA OIL PRODUCERS, WHICH WAS TREATED AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE; II) INVESTMENT MADE BY SHRI V. CHANDRA MOHAN OF RS. 2 LAKHS IN THE SAME PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS ALSO TREATED AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE; 4.1. IN EXPLANATION TO THE ABOVE GROUND, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT INVESTMENT BY SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI OF RS. 2 LAKHS WITH USHODAYA OIL PRODUCERS CANNOT BE ADDED AS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE, SINCE A STATEMENT WAS APPENDED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 6 -: OF USHODAYA OIL PRODUCERS. THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION O F RS. 2 LAKHS BY SMT. VIJAYA LAKSHMI WAS CONFIRMED BY HER. SHE STA TED THAT RS. 1 LAKH WAS RECEIVED AS A GIFT AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE A ND ANOTHER RS. 1 LAKH WAS RECEIVED AS A LOAN FROM HER FATHER-IN -LAW SHRI M. LAKSHMI NARAYANA. THE AO HELD THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WA S TAXABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THAT THE AMOUN T WAS PAID BY ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT SMT. V IJAYA LAKSHMI IS NOT A REAL PARTNER OF THE FIRM. NO EVIDENC E IS AVAILABLE TO SHOW THAT SMT. VIJAYA LAKHSMI ACTED AS A BENAMI OF AS SESSEE. THE PARTNERSHIP DEED OF USHODAYA PRODUCERS WAS AVAIL ABLE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. NONE OF THE OTHER PARTNERS WERE EXAMIN ED BY THE AO. THE RECORD FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH SHOW THAT TH E INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY SMT. VIJAYA LAKHSMI. 4.2. AS FAR AS INVESTMENT MADE BY SHRI V. CHANDRA MOH AN OF RS. 2 LAKHS IS CONCERNED, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE SAI D SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN IS AN ASSESSEE ON FILE. HE WAS FILIN G RETURNS OF INCOME AND COPIES OF THE RETURNS FILED BY HIM ARE AVA ILABLE AT PAGES 23 TO 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FILED THE RETURNS AS T HE PARTNER OF RUPA FINANCE SYNDICATE. THE C.A. SHRI T. GOPI CHAND WAS LOOKING AFTER THE AFFAIRS OF SHRI V. CHANDRA MOHAN ISSUED CE RTIFICATE ON 09- 10-1998 ABOUT HIS PROPERTIES. ACCORDING TO THE SAID C ERTIFICATE, SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN HAD MOVABLE/IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WORTH RS. 45,83,500/-. SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN IS CARRYING ON BUS INESS ACTIVITY SEPARATELY AND THE INVESTMENT MADE BY SHRI CHANDRA MOH AN CANNOT BE ADDED AS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE. LD. COUNS EL SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS INVESTED BY ASSESSEE AND NOT BY SHRI CHANDR A MOHAN. IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 7 -: 4.3. IN SO FAR AS PROFIT OF RS. 1,21,180/- IS CONCE RNED, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT O F ASSESSEE. THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM USHODAYA OIL PRODUCE RS FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME. ASSESSEE IS NOT A PARTNER OF THE SA ID PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT TH E INCOME DERIVED BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM BELONG TO ASSESSEE, EX CEPT THE PRESUMPTION OF AO. LD. COUNSEL URGED THAT THE PROFIT CA NNOT BE ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSEE. 5. AS FAR AS INVESTMENT IN BALAJI OIL PRODUCERS OF RS . 20,000/- IS CONCERNED, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE ADMITTE D THE INVESTMENT AMOUNT OF RS. 20,000/- MADE BY HIM. THERE WAS AN OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 4,90,496/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,25,000/-. THE AMOUNT WAS PAID TO BALAJI OIL PRODUC ERS AND ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDS ON THAT DATE. TH EREFORE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT RS. 20,000/- REPR ESENTS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION WAS MA DE BASED ON THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT AND NOT BASED ON SEIZE D MATERIAL. 6. AS FAR AS INVESTMENT IN CHIT FUNDS IS CONCERNED, LD . COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENTS FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4,250/- IN ORUGALLU CHIT FUND AND RS. 9,600/- IN PRAMIDA CHIT FU NDS WERE MADE BY ASSESSEE. THERE WAS AN OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 4,90,496/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,25,000/ -. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 13,850/- WAS PAID TO CHIT FUND COMPANIES AND ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDS ON THAT DATE. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT RS. 13,850/- REPRESENTS THE UN DISCLOSED INCOME OF ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS AD DITION IS IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 8 -: ALSO MADE BASED ON THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT AN D NOT BASED ON SEIZED MATERIAL. AY. 1994-95 : 7. AS FAR AS INVESTMENTS IN SHARES OF USHODAYA AGRO P RODUCTS ARE CONCERNED, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN SO FAR AS THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 9,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS RECORDED IN THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCO UNT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR AND THE S OURCES ARE EXPLAINED THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT. HE FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT AS FOUND IN THE REC EIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT AND NOT BASED ON THE SEIZED MATER IAL. 7.1 WITH REGARD TO THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 6,85,000/- BY T HE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT S HE MADE THE INVESTMENT FROM HER OWN SOURCES OF INCOME. SHE IS SEPARATELY ASSESSED TO TAX. SHE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN FORM NO. 2B. NOTICE U/S 158BD WAS ISSUED ADMITTING UNDISCLOSED INCO ME OF RS. 2 LAKHS. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY SMT. V. UMA CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASS ESSEE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE INVESTMENT BY SMT. UMA WERE MADE FROM OUT OF THE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.2 WITH REGARD TO THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 8,00,000/- MADE BY SRI V. DAYAKAR, HUF WITH USHODAYA AGRO PRODUCTS IS CONCE RNED, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE HUF FROM ITS OWN SOURCE OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE INV ESTMENT IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 9 -: MADE BY THE HUF CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF TH E ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE INVESTMENT BY HUF WERE MADE FROM OUT OF THE FUNDS O F THE ASSESSEE. HUFS RECEIPT AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT ALSO SHOWS THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 8 LAKHS BY THE HUF. 8. AS REGARDS THE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, WHICH CONSISTS OF PLOT AT MILL PREMISES PURCHASD BY SMT. V. U MA, Y. MALLAIAH, M. ARUNKUMAR AND V. CHANDRA MOHAN FOR RS. 5,60,896/-, ANOTHER SITE IN THE MILL PREMISES FOR RS. 1,91,583 BY THE SAME FOUR PERSONS AND PLOT IN THE NAME OF SRI V. DAYAKAR FOR RS. 65, 262/-, IS CONCERNED, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED TH AT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THAT THE INVESTM ENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 8.1 LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PLOT AT MILL PREMISES FOR RS. 1,91,583/- WAS ALSO MADE JOIN TLY BY SMT.V.UMA, Y.MALLAIAH, M.ARUNKUMAR AND V.,CHANDRA MO HAN. THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SHOW THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY ALL THE FOUR PERSONS. HE S UBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 8.2 WITH REGARD TO THE PLOT IN THE NAME OF SRI V.DAYAKAR FOR RS.65,262/- IS CONCERNED, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTM ENT WAS MADE FROM OUT OF HIS OWN SOURCES. 9. AS FAR AS THE ALLEGED INVESTMENTS IN CHITS, WHICH C ONSISTS OF RECEIPT FROM ORUGALLU CHIT FUND OF RS. 20,000/- AND FROM PRAMIDA CHIT FUNDS OF RS. 65,000/- ARE CONCERNED, LD. COUNSE L SUBMITTED IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 10 -: THAT THIS IS NOT AN INVESTMENT AS THIS AMOUNT DOES NOT REPR ESENT INVESTMENT BUT REPRESENTS THE RECEIPT FROM ORUGALLA CHIT FUND OF RS. 20,000/- AND FROM PRAMIDA CHIT FUNDS OF RS.65,0 00/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS OF RS. 85,000/-- ARE SHO WN ON THE RECEIPTS SIDE OF THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT. 10. AS REGARDS THE INVESTMENTS IN PLOTS AT SHIVNAGAR AN D FORT ROAD, WARANGAL, WHICH CONSISTS OF PLOT OF THE VALUE OF RS. 70,440/- PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE, PROPERTY OF THE VALUE OF R S. 38,000/- EACH IN THE NAMES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE SMT. U MA AT FOR ROAD, WARANGAL, ARE CONCERNED, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE FOR ACQUISITION OF PLOTS ARE SHOWN IN RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. AY 1995-96 11. AS FAR AS INVESTMENTS IN SHARES OF USHODAYA AGRO PRODUCTS, WHICH CONSISTS OF INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES OF USHODAYA AGRO PRODUCTS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 9,00,000/- AND IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE SMT. UM OF RS. 4,00,000/-, ARE CONC ERNED, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.9 LAKHS WAS INVE STED BY THE ASSESSEE IN USHODAYA AGRO PRODUCTS THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS PAID BY CHEMICFABS THROUGH DD D IRECTLY TO USHODAYA OIL REFINERIES. COPY OF THE DD IS AT PAGE NO . 35 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE AMOUNT WAS SENT DIRECTLY BY THE COMPAN Y TO USHODAYA OIL REFINERIES FOR PAYMENT OF RS.9 IAKHS, T HE SAME WAS SHOWN IN THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT ALSO. 11.1 WITH REGARD TO RS.4 IAKHS IN THE NAME OF SMT. UMA IS CONCERNED, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT SHE INVESTED THE S AID IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 11 -: AMOUNT TOWARDS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. SHE IS SEPARAT ELY ASSESSED TO TAX. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HER INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION WAS MADE BASED ON THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT FILED AND NOT BASED ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL. 12. AS REGARDS THE INVESTMENTS IN CHITS, WHICH CONSISTS OF INVESTMENT IN THE CHITS OF GUNADEEP OF RS. 9,875/- AND MARGARDSI CHIT FUNDS OF RS. 9,875/-, ARE CONCERNED, THE LD. CO UNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT IS ALREADY RECORDED IN THE REC EIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT. THE ADDITION IS NOT MADE BASED ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL. 12. AS REGARDS THE INVESTMENTS IN PLOTS AT FOR ROAD, WAR ANGAL IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. UMA ARE CONCE RNED, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT INVESTMENTS IN PLOTS AT FORT ROAD, WARANGAL IN THE NAME WARANGAL WAS MADE BY SMT.V.UMA, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. SHE IS SEPARATELY ASSESSED TO TAX. THE ADDITION IS NOT MADE BASED ON SEIZED MATERIAL. THE AMOUNT IS RECORDE D IN THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT. 13. AS REGARDS INVESTMENT IN PADMAVATHI COTTON CORPORA TION IS CONCERNED, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT IS SH OWN IN THE RECEIPTS COTTON COR ORATION. AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT. AY 1996-97 14. AS REGARDS THE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES OF USHODAYA A GRO PRODUCTS, WHICH CONSISTS OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF USH ODAYA AGRO PRODUCTS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 19,000/- A ND IN THE NAME OF V. CHANDRA MOHAN OF RS. 11,32,000, ARE CONC ERNED, LD. IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 12 -: COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE IS F OR RS. 19,000/-. THIS AMOUNT IS SHOWN IN THE RECEIPTS AND PA YMENTS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED RS.11,32,000/- INVESTED BY SRI V.CHANDRA MOHAN. AS SUBMITTED EARLIER, MR.V.CHAN DRA MOHAN IS ASSESSED TO TAX. 15. AS REGARDS INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, WH ICH IS MADE IN ACQUISITION OF 489 SQ.YDS. JOINTLY IN THE NAM ES OF SMT. UMA, Y. MALLAIAH, M. ARUNKUMAR AND V. CHANDRA MOHAN , IS CONCERNED, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS INVESTMEN T IS SMT.UMA, Y.MALLAIAH, M.ARUNKUMAR MADE IN ACQUISITION OF 489 AND V.CHANDRA MOHAN FOR ACQUISITION OF SQ.YDS. JOINTL Y IN THE NAMES THE PROPERTY OF 489 SQ.YDS. THE SMT. UMA, Y.MAL LAIAH, INVESTMENT WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO E VIDENCE IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE. 16. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND DEFENDED THE ORDER OF AO AND ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS FOLLOWS: A SURVEY OPERATION U/S 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT W AS INITIATED AGAINST THE FIRM, M/S PADMAVATHI OIL PRODUCERS, IN WHICH AB OVE ASSESSEE IS MANAGING PARTNER ON 31-1-1996 WHEN IT WAS NOTICED T HAT THE FIRM FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-4, 199~95 AND 1995-96 ON 29-01-1996 WITHOUT ENCLOSING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS AND BALANCE SHEETS ALONG WITH NECESSARY ANNEXURES AS ALSO THE C HALLANS FOR THE PAYMENT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX U/S 140A. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION, DISCREPANCY OF STOCK OF RS. 7,46,956/-, CERTAIN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS AND EXCESS CASH OF RS. 2 LAKHS WAS FOUN D. THEN THE SURVEY OPERATIONS WERE CONVERTED INTO SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, DOCUMENTS RELATIN G TO THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 13 -: 2. NOTICE U/S 158BD WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. TH E ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS .4 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 1 58BD. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 31-01-1997. ON FIRST AP PEAL, THE HON'BLE ITAT RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO WITH DIR ECTION FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD VIDE ORDER IN IT{SS)A NO.123/H/1997 DT: 22.02.2007 FOR B LOCK PERIOD 1986-87 TO 31-11997. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES TO SUBMIT ITS CASE. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR BILLS & VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN MISPL ACED AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ACCEPTED THAT NO PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED DURING THE COURSE OF P OST-SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED HOW HE WOUL D SUBSTANTIATE THE FINAL ACCOUNTS RELYING UPON BY IT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE BOOKS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADDUCED ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE PREPA RATION OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THA T THE SUBMISSION MADE EARLIER AND NO NEW EVIDENCES/MATERIAL BROUGHT TO RE CORD. 4. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93, THE OPENING C ASH BALANCE OF RS. 1,51,241/- AND GIFT RECEIVED OF RS. 6,07,852/- WERE FOUND TO BE NOT GENUINE. WITH REGARD TO THE OPENING CASH BALANCES, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE HAD AGRICULTURAL LANDS OF 9 ACRES AND THE SOURCE FOR THE BALANCE IS SAVINGS FROM THE AGRICULTURAL IN COME. HOWEVER, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED REGARDING THE OW NERSHIP OF LANDS, CROPS GROWN, SALES MADE, EXPENSES INCURRED ETC. AS REGARDS THE GIFTS RECEIVED, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE GIFTS WERE RECE IVED BY HIS WIFE ON 10TH AND 11TH MARRIAGE ANNIVERSARIES FROM THE CLOSE RELA TIVES, BUT THEY ARE RESISTING TO CONFIRM THE GIFTS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE GIFTS WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE EXCEPT FURNISHING WIT H THE LIST OF DONORS. HENCE, THE AMOUNTS WERE ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 14 -: 5. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94, THE INVESTMEN T IN THE SHARE CAPITALS OF FIRMS, USHODAYA OIL PRODUCERS AND BALAJ I OIL PRODUCERS AND INVESTMENT IN CHITS WERE ADDED WHEN THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT FURNISH NECESSARY AND REASONABLE EVIDENCE. ON ENQUIRY, IT W AS FOUND THAT THE ALLEGED PARTNERS IN THESE FIRMS, VIZ, SMT. M. VIJAY A LAKSHMI AND SRI V. CHANDRA MOHAN ARE THE BENAMIS OF THE ASSESSEE WHO H AD NO MEANS TO INVEST AND ARE NOT GENUINE PARTNERS. WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENT IN CHITS, IT MAY BE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED A NY EXPLANATION. 6. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 AND 95-96, THE INVESTMENT MADE IN SHARES OF M/S. USHODAYA AGRO PRODUCTS LTD., AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES, PLOTS IN WARANGAL AND INVESTMENT IN CHITS OF RS. 34 ,35,781/- AND RS. 18,71,580/- RESPECTIVELY WERE ADDED IN THE ABSENCE OF CREDIBLE EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT MOST OF THE SHARE-HOLDERS OF THE COMPANY ARE BENAMI S OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAVE NO MEANS TO INVEST. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN BENAMI NAMES AND OF FERED THEM AS SECURITY FOR OBTAINING LOANS FROM SBH, WARANGAL AND HE HAS N OT EXPLAINED THE SOURCES FOR CERTAIN OTHER PROPERTIES. 7. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, THE INVESTMEN T MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BENAMI, SRI V. CHANDRA MOHAN, IN T HE SHARES OF USHODAYA AGRO PRODUCTS AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES O F RS. 25,73,071/- WAS ADDED AFTER ANALYZING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 16.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSMENT MADE MAY BE SUSTAINED AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD. AS FA R AS THE PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED, EVEN THOUGH AO MENTIONED I N THE ORDER THAT PROCEEDINGS ARE U/S 158BC READ WITH SECTION 254, TH E PROCEEDINGS ARE ORIGINALLY INITIATED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. THE SAME IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 15 -: IS ALSO VERIFIED FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE EA RLIER ROUND DATED 22/02/2007 WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. CONSEQUENTLY, WE HAVE TO HOLD THAT PROCEEDINGS INIT IATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ARE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS TO THE SEARCH UNDERTAKEN IN THE CASE OF M/S PADMAVATHI OIL PRODUCER S. THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 158BD IS LIMITED TO THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN THE PROCEDURE PRE SCRIBED IN THE ACT, IT IS REQUIRED THAT AO HAS TO GIVE A FINDING OR AT LEAST HE SHOULD BE SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONG S TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH REFERENCE TO WHOM SEA RCH WAS MADE U/S 132 OF THE ACT, THEN, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OT HER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE H ANDED OVER TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OF THE PERSON AND THE AO SHALL PROCEED U/S 158BC AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON. A S CAN BE SEEN FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD, THERE SHOU LD BE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS, WHICH HAVE SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED IN THE SEARCH IN AN ASSESSEE CASE. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO, THERE WAS NO SEARCH MATERIAL OR INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, OTHER THAN THE REPORTS OF THE SU RVEY DISCLOSING DEFICIT OR EXCESS STOCK AND CASH FOUND IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. BEING THE CASE, WHERE NO INCRIMINAT ING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND PARTICULARLY IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, W HEN THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED U/S 158BD, THE SCOPE OF REASSESSMENT/ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE IS RESTRICTED. 17.1 THE CASE LAW ON THE SUBJECT AND ON THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV-B ARE VERY CLEAR THAT ONLY THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH WAS FOUND CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH I.E. WHICH HAS NOT BEE N OR WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT OR A NY EXPENSE, IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 16 -: DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE CLAIMED UNDER THIS ACT, WHICH I S FOUND TO BE FALSE, CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE BLOCK PERIOD. 17.2 AS BRIEFLY STATED ABOVE AND CONTENTIONS REITERATE D BY ASSESSEE IN THE SUBMISSIONS, ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETUR NS OF INCOME BEFORE THE SO-CALLED SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IT SELF. AS SEEN FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AO ALSO, MOST OF THE ADDITIONS ARE MADE O N THE BASIS OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FURNISHED ON THE BASIS OF AS SESSEES RECORDED TRANSACTIONS. IN VIEW OF THAT, WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT MANY OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO CANNOT BE SUSTAIN ED AS SUCH. 17.3 NOT ONLY THAT, AS SEEN FROM THE COPIES OF THE PAN CHNAMA AND THE LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS FOUND IN THE SEARCH AND THE S TATEMENTS RECORDED FROM THE PARTIES CONCERNED, IT IS EVIDENT THAT TH ERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSEE IS BENAMI OF HIS WIFE AND OTHERS WHOSE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL AND ALSO PLACED ON RECORD, AO HAS INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 1 47/158BD IN ALL THE CASES INCLUDING THE CASE OF V. CHANDRA MOHAN , WHOSE SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IS CONSIDERED TO BE ASSESSEES I NVESTMENT. EVEN THOUGH, LD. DR TRIED TO JUSTIFY THAT INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BENAMI SHRI V. CHANDRA MOHAN, IN THE SHARES OF USHA AGRO PRODUCTS AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES OF RS. 25,73,071/- WAS ADDED AFTER ANALYZING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH MATERIAL. IN FACT THE COPIES OF SAL E DEEDS, LEDGER COPIES INDICATE THAT THOSE PROPERTIES WERE OWNED BY THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN SOURCES AND INCOME-TA X RETURNS WERE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT TH E AO HAS INITIATED RESPECTIVE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, WHICH IN DICATE THAT IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 17 -: THEY ARE PERSONS HAVING THEIR OWN INCOME-TAX PROCEEDI NGS WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND SO THEY CANNOT BE HELD AS BENAMI OF THE A SSESSEE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. AS SEEN FROM THE STATEMENTS RECORDED OR FROM THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES ISSUE D, THERE IS NO INCLINATION EVEN TO SUGGEST THAT THOSE INVESTMENTS AR E BENAMI INVESTMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVI DENCE, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT AOS CONTENTION THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY HIS WIFE AND SHRI V. CHANDRA MOHAN AND OTHER AMOUNTS ARE ASSESSEES OWN. THEREFORE, TO THE EXTENT OF INVESTMENTS BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS BENAMI INVESTMENTS, WE HAVE NO H ESITATION IN DELETING THE SAME. NOT ONLY THAT, AO ALSO PASSED HIS A SSESSMENT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTING HIS TRANSACTIONS. WITHOUT ANY CONTRAR Y EVIDENCE OR INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, AO HAD BROUGHT TO TAX THE OPENING BALANCE AND SOME INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE EXPLAI NED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. AS CAN BE SEEN FRO M THE ORDERS, AO DISBELIEVED CERTAIN INVESTMENTS WITHOUT QUES TIONING THE SOURCE OF FUNDS. DETAILS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL EXTRACTED IN THE ABOVE DO INDICATE THAT FOR EVERY INVES TMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THERE IS CORRESPONDING SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT, SO THEY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ENQUIRY TO DISPROVE THE SOURCE OF FUN DS. HE HAS SIMPLY DISBELIEVED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION, WHICH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, PARTICULARLY, IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WHERE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE CONSEQUENTIAL U/S 158BD. THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISBELIEVING THE SOURCES CAN ALSO BE EVIDENT FROM THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THE SO-CALLED INVESTMENTS IN THE CHIT FUNDS. NOT ONLY THAT ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS SEPARATE ASSESSMENT IN THE STATUS OF HUF AND SOME OF THE INVESTME NTS ARE MADE BY THE HUF, BUT, WITHOUT DISPROVING THE SAME AO SI MPLY IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 18 -: BROUGHT TO TAX ALL THOSE INVESTMENTS ALSO IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THERE IS EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT ASSESSEE ALSO OFFERE D INCOMES IN HUF STATUS, HAVING ITS OWN SOURCES OF INCOME AND THOSE WERE NOT DISPROVED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, KEEPING IN MIND THE LIMITED JURISDICTION FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 158BD AND THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE COULD EXPLAIN VARIOUS INVESTMENTS IN CASH F LOW STATEMENT ITSELF WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS , WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN ALLOWING GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. S INCE ALL THE INVESTMENTS BROUGHT TO TAX ARE EITHER EXPLAINED IN THE CA SH FLOW STATEMENT OR BELONGING TO THIRD PARTIES WHICH HAVE BROU GHT TO TAX AS BENAMI, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE ALL OF THEM. ACC ORDINGLY, ALL THE GROUNDS ARE CONSIDERED AS ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH MAY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED 13/05/2016 TNMM/KV COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI V. DAYAKAR RAO, C/O SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, H. NO. 3-6-643, ST . NO. 9, HIMAYAT NAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 029 2. DCIT, CIRCLE 9 (1), HYDERABAD 3 THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD IT(SS)A.NO. 28/HYD/2009 :- 19 -: S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S/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.P.S./PS SR.P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER