Smt. Hemaben Ashokbhai Barot, Mehsana V. The ACIT., Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 338/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0090 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Unexplained investment; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Principle of natural justice; Tangible material; Corroborative evidences; Valuation report; Bogus loan
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 69

Judgement Text

, , , , A, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, A BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(SS)A NO. & ASSTT.YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 TO 6 286 TO 292/AHD/2011 A.Y.2001-2002 TO 2007-2008 SMT. HEMABEN ASHOKBHAI BAROT AVIRAJ SAHARA TOWN SHIP, RADHANPUR ROAD, MEHSANA. PAN : ABAPB 7969 A DCIT, CC.1(3) AHMEDABAD. 7 257/AHD/2013 A.Y.2007-2008 SMT. HEMABEN ASHOKBHAI BAROT AVIRAJ SAHARA TOWN SHIP, RADHANPUR ROAD, MEHSANA. DCIT, CC.1(3) AHMEDABAD. IT(SS)A NO. & ASSTT.YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 257/AHD/2013 A.Y.2007-2008 SMT. HEMABEN ASHOKBHAI BAROT AVIRAJ SAHARA TOWN SHIP, RADHANPUR ROAD, MEHSANA. PAN : ABAPB 7969 A DCIT, CC.1(3) AHMEDABAD. 2 TO 7 333 TO 338/AHD/2013 A.Y.2001-2002 TO 2006-2007 SMT. HEMABEN ASHOKBHAI BAROT AVIRAJ SAHARA TOWN SHIP, RADHANPUR ROAD, MEHSANA. DCIT, CC.1(3) AHMEDABAD. ,& - . )/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DIVETIA + - . )/ REVENUE BY : SHRI SUBHASH BAINS, CIT-DR WITH SHRI O.P. BATHEJA, SR.DR 0 - &(*/ DATE OF HEARING : 19 TH MARCH, 2014 123 - &(*/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-05-2014 SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 2 )4 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). SINCE SIMILAR ISSUES ARE INVO LVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE 14 APPEALS, 7 APPEALS PERTAIN TO QUANTUM ADDITION AND 7 APPEALS P ERTAIN TO PENALTY ON THE QUANTUM ADDITION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THO UGH THE APPEALS PERTAINS TO DIFFERENT YEARS BUT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE A PPEALS ARE IDENTICAL AS THEY ALL ARISE OUT OF THE SEARCH ACTION CARRIED ON 1.11.2006 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUN TS AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS ALSO A CONSOLIDATED ORDE R. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THEY HAVE COMMON SUBMISSIONS TO MAKE FOR ALL T HE APPEALS. WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE APPEALS BY WAY OF A C ONSOLIDATED ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE PROCEED WITH THE FACTS FOR A Y 2001-02. IT(SS)A.NO.286/AHD/2011 (A.Y.2001-2002) 2. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S. VIRAJ FINANCE, CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS IN FINANCING AND MONEY LENDING. A WAR RANT OF AUTHORIZATION UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE IT ACT WAS ISSUED AND EXECUTE D AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES ON 1.11.2006 AND CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND S EIZED. ACCORDINGLY, PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A WERE INITIATED ON 10 .1.2008 FOR A.Y.2001-02 TO 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME F OR AY 2001-02 ON 3.10.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.76,300/-. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153A(1)(B) OF THE ACT O N 26.12.2008 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.2,15,560/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO VI DE ORDER DATED 21.1.2011 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 3 3. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS, HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PRESSED ONLY O NE EFFECTIVE GROUND, BEING GROUND NO.1 FOR ADJUDICATION, WHICH IS AS UNDER: 3.1 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN UPHOLDING THAT LOOSE PAPERS INDICATED THAT INTEREST WAS EARNED AT 27% AS AGAINST 18% DECLARED IN THE RETURN AND THUS, CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,39 ,265/- TOWARDS INTEREST INCOME. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDI NG AND HAD SHOWN INTEREST AT 18% IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION AT THE OFFICE PREMISES, SOME LOOSE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED FROM A FILE ANNEXURED AS PER ANNEXURE-BS 1 AND PAGE NO.8 OF THE SAID FILE SHOWED SOME ENTRIES OF AMOUNT AND WORKING OF I NTEREST FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD. AO NOTED THAT IT REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD CHARGED INTEREST AT 27% FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD ON THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED AGA INST THE NOTINGS. SOME OF INSTANCES OF THE NOTINGS ARE REPRODUCED BY THE AO A T PAGE NO.2 OF THE ORDER. ON THE BASIS OF THE NOTINGS, AO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS CHARGING INTEREST AT 27% AND NOT AT 18% AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LOOSE PAPER WAS A ROUGH WORK OF SOME AMOUNT AND IT DID NOT BEAR HER NAME NOR NAME OF HER FIRM, AND THAT SUCH LOOSE PAPER DID NOT BELONG TO HER, WAS FOUND NOT ACCEPTAB LE TO THE AO. THE AO RELYING ON PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292C(III) OF THE A CT, HELD THAT ENTRIES WERE WRITTEN AND ADMITTED TO BE IN THE HANDWRITING OF TH E ASSESSEES HUSBAND. HE THEREAFTER WORKED OUT THE INTEREST ON THE MONEY LEN T AND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AT 27% AND WORKED OUT THE INTEREST AT RS.4,17,795/- AS AGAINST THE INTEREST @ 18% (AMOUNTING TO RS.2,78,530/-) CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,39,265 (RS.4,17,795 MINUS RS.2,78,530/-) WAS T REATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A)WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER: SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 4 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMILABEN RATILAL SHAH VS. CIT (282 ITR 176)(GUJ) HAS HELD AT PARA 16) AS UNDER: SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT PROVIDES THAT IN CASE OF INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, IF ANY, MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION OR THE EXPLA NATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFACTORY IN THE OPINION OF THE AO, THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS MAY BE DEEMED TO BE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE VALUE OF THE PROPER TY REFLECTED IN THE SEIZED DIARY IS IN EXCESS OF THE VALUE REFLECTED IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN FO UND TO BE SATISFACTORY BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE TRIBUNAL. IN THESE C IRCUMSTANCES, THE AUTHORITY IS STATUTORILY EMPOWERED TO DEEM THE DIFFERENCE AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETION VESTED IN THE AUTHORITY HAVING REGARD TO THE ATTENDANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND THE CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THOUGH THE NOTINGS WHICH WERE FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH REVE ALED ONLY FIVE INSTANCES, THE AO HAD PROCEEDED TO WORK OUT THE INTEREST ON THE EN TIRE AMOUNT OF MONEY WHICH WAS LENT BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THOUGH THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 1.11.2006 AND NO MATERIAL OR EVIDENCES WERE FOUND FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, AO HAS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS EARNED HIGHER INTEREST EVEN IN THE YEARS PRIOR TO THE SEARCH AND THE PRESUMPTION OF THE AO WAS NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEAR CH. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION, AND THE SAME BE DELETED. 8. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS NOT BASED MERELY ON ASSUMPTION, BUT WAS BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT COOPERA TIVE AND WAS EVASIVE AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO MAKE THE ADDITION. SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 5 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 1.11.2006 AND CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND WHICH ALSO INCLUDED AN ANNEXURE S HOWING THE INTEREST CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 27% AND THE ADDITION WA S MADE ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. IT IS ALSO A FA CT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, APART FROM THE AFORESAID ANNEXURE, NO OTHER DOCUMENTS OR EVIDENCES PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER REVIEW WAS FOUND WHICH SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CHARGED THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 27% AS AGAI NST THE INTEREST OF 18% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AO A T PAGE NO.2 OF HIS ORDER ALSO REPRODUCED THE AMOUNT GIVEN AND THE PERIOD FOR WHIC H INTEREST IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN CHARGED @ 27%. EVEN FROM THE AFORESAID CHART, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT OUT OF THE 5 INSTANCES SHOWN, NONE OF THE INSTANCE PERTAIN S TO THE PERIOD UNDER APPEAL AND THEY ALL PERTAIN TO PERIOD OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08. IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED I NCOME CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH A ND NOT ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE, WHICH COULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT CHARGED INTEREST AT 27% IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,39,265/- MADE FOR THE YEAR UNDER REVIEW NEEDS TO BE DELETED. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY, AND THUS THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . IT(SS)A NO.287/AHD/2011 (A.Y.2002-03), IT(SS)A NO.2 88/AHD/2011 (A.Y.2003-04) AND IT(SS)A NO.289/AHD/2011 (A.Y.2004 -05): THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE IDE NTICAL EXCEPT THE AMOUNT. WE THEREFORE REPRODUCE THE GROUND RAISED IN IT(SS)A NO 287/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2002-03 FOR REFERENCE. SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 6 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 21.01.2011 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 BY CIT(A)-1, ABAD, UPHOLDING THE ORDER U/S. 143(3] DATED 26.12.2008 IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPER LY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. 2.1 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN CONFIRMING THAT THE PAGE-8 OF ANNEXURE-BS-L WAS RECOVERED FROM THE PREM ISES OF THE APPELLANT AND PARTLY WRITTEN BY HER HUSBAND SO THAT THE BURDEN LI E UPON THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND CONTENTS THEREOF. 3.1 THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN UPHOLDING THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS INDICATED THAT INTEREST WAS EARNED AT 27% AS AGAINST 18%DECLARED IN THE RETURN AND THUS, CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,12,660/- TOWARDS INTEREST INCOME. 3.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ABOVE ADDITI ONS. 11. IN THE ABOVE APPEALS, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE ID ENTICAL AND ARE WITH REGARD TO TAXING THE INTEREST AT 27% AS AGAINST THE 18% DECLA RED IN THE RETURN. 12. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR TO IT(SS)A.NO.286/AHD/2011 FOR A.Y. 01-02 EXCEPT THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION, AND THEREFORE, THEY MAY BE ADJ UDICATED ON SIMILAR LINE. 13. WE FIND THAT BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE ADMITTED THA T THE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR TO THAT RAISED IN IT(SS)A.NO.28 6/AHD/2011 FOR A.Y. 01-02. WE THEREFORE, FOR SIMILAR REASONS RECORDED IN THE A FORESAID PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER IN IT(SS)A.NO.286/AHD/2011 FOR A.Y. 01-02 AL LOW THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THESE APPEALS. 14. IN THE RESULT, IT(SS)A.NO. 287, 288 AND 289/AHD /2011 ARE ALLOWED. IT(SS)A.NO.290/AHD/2011 (A.Y.2005-2006) THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 21.01.2011 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 BY CIT(A)-I, A'BAD, UPHOLDING THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 26.12.2008 IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 7 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPER LY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. 2.1 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE COST OF LAND AT RS.400/- PER SQ. MTR. AS AGAINST THE JANTRI PRICE OF RS. 350/- PER SQ. MTR. 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE ID. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRMED COST OF THE LAND AT RS. 400/- PER SQ. MTR . AS AGAINST JANTRI PRICE OF RS. 350/-. 2.3 THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN PARTLY C ONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,40,740/- TOWARDS COST OF LAND 3.1 THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN UPHOLDING THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS INDICATED THAT INTEREST WAS EARNED AT 27% AS AGAINST 18%DECLARED IN THE RETURN AND THUS, CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,9 5,021/- TOWARDS INTEREST INCOME. 3.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. 4.1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE AND IN THE ALTERNATI VE, THE ID. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED TELESCOPING OF BOTH THE ADDITIONS I.E. INTE REST INCOME AND COST OF LAND INSTEAD OF SEPARATE ADDITIONS. 15. THE GROUND NO.1.1 AND 1.2 REGARDING VALIDITY OF ORDER PASSED HAS NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE, HENCE THE SAME ARE DISMISS ED. 16. THE GROUND NO.2.1, 2.2 AND 2.3 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEALS IS AS UNDER: 2.1 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE COST OF LAND AT RS.400/- PER SQ.MTR. AS AGAINST THE JANT RI PRICE OF RS.350/- PER SQ.MTR. 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT HAVE CONFIRMED COST OF THE LAND AT RS.400/- PER SQ. MTR. AS AGAINST JANTRI PRICE OF RS.350/- 2.3 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN PARTLY CO NFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.1,40,740/- TOWARDS COST OF LAND. 17. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT IDENTICAL GROUND IS ALSO RAISED IN ITA NO.291 (FOR A.Y. 06-07) AND 292/AHD/2011 (FOR A.Y. 07-08) WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED AMOUNT OF HOUSE PROPERTY. T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE FACTS IN THESE APPEAL S ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF IT(SS)A.NO.290/AHD/2011 (FOR A.Y. 05-06), EXCEPT AM OUNT OF ADDITION, THE COMMON GROUND MAY BE ADJUDICATED UPON BASED ON THE FACTS RECORDED IN IT(SS)A.NO.290/AHD/2011. SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 8 18. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTE D A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT SHIVAM SECTOR, SAHARA TOWNSHIP BY PURCHASING A PLOT OF LAND FOR RS.59,000/- ON 23.2.2005 AND SUBSEQUENTLY STARTED CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING, WHICH WAS COMPLETED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND FOR WHI CH ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENSES OF RS.6,40,000/-. DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE EXACT VALUATION OR INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PROPERTY, BUT T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER THE EXACT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE AO, THEREFORE, RE FERRED THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO VALUATION CELL. THE VALUATION CELL VID E ITS REPORT DATED 18.11.2008 DETERMINED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.1,99,740 /- FOR A.Y.2005-06 AND RS.9,47,000/- FOR A.Y.2006-07 (AGGREGATING TO RS.11 ,46,740/-) AS AGAINST THE VALUATION OF RS.59,000/- FOR A.Y.2005-06 AND RS.6,4 0,000/- FOR A.Y.2006-07 (AGGREGATING TO RS 6,99,000) AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESS EE. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE (RS 1,99,740 LESS RS 59,000) OF RS.1,40,740/- FOR A.Y.2005-06 AND (RS 9,47,000 LESS RS 6,40,000) RS.3,07,000/- WAS CONSID ERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR A.Y.2005 -06 AND 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY, AND THE SAME WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. 19. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE S UBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, AS PER PARA 5.2 AS UNDER: 5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPEL LANT. AFTER CONSIDERATION, THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS ARE ISSUED. (I) AS REGARD TO THE COST OF THE LAND, I FIND THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER HAD VALUED THE SAME AT A VERY HIGH PRICE. THE APPELLANT HAS S HOWN TO HAVE PURCHASED THE LAND AT JANTRI PRICE OF RS.350/- PER SQUARE METER. THE VALUATION OFFICER, WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL, HAS VA LUED THE LAND @ RS.1,200/- PER SQUARE METER. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE JANTRI PRICE, THE LAND IN QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO BE VALUE D @ RS.400/- PER SQUARE METER. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO REWORK OUT THE ADDITI ON ACCORDINGLY. (II) AS REGARD TO THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY, WHEREIN VARIOUS AS PECTS OF THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER IN THE VALUATION SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 9 REPORT. THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE RATE S OF MATERIALS, AS PER LOCAL RATES. IN APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO POIN T OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER. HENCE, T HE ADDITION OF RS.3,07,000/- BEING THE UNACCOUNTED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE P ROPERTY IS CONSIDERED JUSTIFIED AND ADDITION OF THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 20. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 21. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR REITERATED SUBMISSION S MADE BEFORE THE AO AND THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PLOT NO.79 AT SHIVAM SECTOR WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 23.2.2005 FOR RS.5 9,000/- AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE CONSTRUCTION WORK OF BUILDING WAS STARTED, WHIC H WAS COMPLETED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE H AS INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.6,40,000/-. THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WAS GIVE N TO ALAP CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. AND TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE THROUGH CHEQUES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DVO CONSIDERED THE VA LUATION OF THE LAND BY TAKING A RATE OF RS.1,200/- PER SQUARE METER FOR WH ICH NO COMPARABLE INSTANCE WAS GIVEN. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DVO HAS T AKEN THE RATE OF CONSTRUCTION AND FURTHER INCREASED TOWARDS THE COST OF THE ITEMS LIKE, MARBLE, POLISH QOTA, BLACK GRANITES, AND MOSAIC TILES ON FLOORING ETC. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD PAID MORE PURCHASE PRICE THAN THE RECORDED IN THE DEED OF TRANSFER, AN D THAT THE BURDEN WAS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID MORE PRICE THAN WHICH HAS BEEN RECORDED. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO, 131 ITR 597. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AND THEREFORE, THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO WAS NOT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAGHUVANSHI MOTORS P. LTD. VS. DCIT, IN ITA NO.1548 /AHD/2010 ORDER DATED 10.1.2014 AND THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH IN TH E CASE OF ITO VS. AGILE PROPERTIES LTD., ITA NO.3582/DEL/2010 ORDER DATED 2 7.8.2013. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, NO ADDITION WAS SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 10 REQUIRED TO BE MADE. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 22. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED LA ND FOR RS.59,000/- ON 23.2.2005, WHICH WAS EXECUTED AT JANTRI RATE OF RS. 350/- PER SQUARE METER AGAINST WHICH THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE RATE AT RS1200/- PER SQUARE METER. CIT(A), WHILE GRANTING PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER WITHOUT ANY SUPP ORTING EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL HAS VALUED THE LAND @ RS.1,200/- PER SQUARE METER. THE CIT(A), THEREAFTER DIRECTED THE LAND TO BE VALUED AT RS.400/- PER SQUA RE METER. BEFORE US, THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING PARTIAL RE LIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE RATE OF RS.400/- CONSIDERED AS PRICE OF THE LAND. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE COPY OF THE REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT. THE AO, THEREAFTER, MADE REFERENCE TO THE DVO. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSE E DID NOT FILE ANY VALUATION REPORT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT FACT S, THE REFERENCE MADE TO THE DVO BY THE AO WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED TO HAVE MADE PAYMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION TO ALAP CONST RUCTION AND THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SU BMITTED THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED RATE OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.5 ,585/- AND RS.5,655/- PER SQUARE METER, OVER AND ABOVE SEPARATE ADDITIONS FOR MARBLE, POLISH, QUOTA, BLACK GRANITES AND MOSAIC TITLES ON FLOORING ETC. THE AF ORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE B Y BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RATE APPLIED BY THE DVO IS ON HIGHER SIDE, MORE SO, WHEN A SEPARATE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MARBLE, GRANITES, MOSAIC TITLES ETC. CO NSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRE SENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE SHALL BE MET IF THE ADDITI ON IS RESTRICTED TO RS.2,00,000/-. SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 11 WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY AND THE COMMON GROUND RAISED IN THESE THREE APPEALS IS PARTLY ALLOWED. GROUND NO 3 IS WITH RESPECT TO CONFIRMING THE INTER EST INCOME OF RS 3,95,021/- 23 BEFORE US, BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THE G ROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED FOR AY 2001-02. I T WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE ALSO SIMILAR TO THAT OF APPEAL FOR AY 2001-02 EXCEPT THE QUANTUM, AND THEREFORE THE GROUND MAY BE ADJUDICATED ON SIMILAR LINE. 24. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS SIMILAR TO THAT RAISED IN IT(SS)A.NO.286/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2001-02. THEREFORE, FOR SIMILAR REASONS RECORDED IN THE AFORESAID PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER IN IT(SS)A.NO.286/AHD/2011, WE ALLOW THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE APPEALS. 25. IN RESULT THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED . IT(SS)A.NO.291/AHD/2011 (A.Y.2006-2007) THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 21.01.2011 FOR A.Y.2006 -07 BY CIT(A)-L, A'BAD, UPHOLDING THE ORDER U/S.!43(3) DATED 26.12.2008 IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPER LY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. 2.1 THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE REJECTION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY, THOUGH PROPER RECORD WAS MAINTAINED . THE REFERENCE TO DVO WAS IN ITSELF, BA D IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW THE ID. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE REFERENCE MADE TO DVO AS WELL AS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED BY DVO AND THEREBY UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,07,000/-. 3.3 THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDIN G THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,07,000/- TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION. 4.1 THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN UPHOLDING THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS INDICATED THAT INTEREST WAS EARNED AT 27% AS AGAINST 18%DECLARED IN THE RETURN AND THUS, CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,5 8,210/- TOWARDS INTEREST INCOME. SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 12 4.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. 5.1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE AND IN THE ALTERNATI VE, THE ID. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED TELESCOPING OF BOTH THE ADDITIONS I.E. INTE REST INCOME AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION INSTEAD OF SEPARATE ADDITIONS. GROUND NO 1 AND SUB GROUNDS ARE GENERAL AND REQUIRE S NO ADJUDICATION AND THEREFORE DISMISSED. 26. BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAI SED IN THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.2 90/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2005-06 EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE WHI LE ARGUING THE APPEAL FOR AY 2005-06 WOULD BE APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO AND THE GROUNDS MAY BE ADJUDICATED UPON BASED ON THE FACTS RECORDED IN IT(SS)A.NO.290/AHD/2011. 27. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS SIMILAR TO THAT RAISED IN IT(SS)A.NO.286/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2001-02. THEREFORE, FOR SIMILAR REASONS RECORDED IN THE AFORESAID PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER IN IT(SS)A.NO.286/AHD/2011, WE ALLOW THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE APPEALS. 28. IN RESULT THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED . IT(SS)A.NO.292/AHD/2011 (A.Y.2007-2008) GROUND NO 1 GENERAL AND THEREFORE NOT PRESSED AND T HEREFORE NOT ADJUDICATED. 29. THE REMAINING GROUND RAISED IN IT(SS)A.NO.292/A HD/2011 IS AS UNDER: 2.1 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING PARTLY THE ADDITION TOWARDS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SAL E OF PROPERTY AT SAHARA TOWNSHIP BY CONFIRMING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.12,72,00 0/- SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 13 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.12.72 LACS OF THE SAID PROPERTY AND THEREBY PARTLY CONFIRMING THE SHORT TERM CAPITA L GAIN. 4.1 THE ID. C1T(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN UPHOLDING THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS INDICATED THAT INTEREST WAS EARNED AT 27% AS AGAINST 18%DECLARED IN THE RETURN AND THUS, CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,6 2,264/- TOWARDS INTEREST INCOME. 4.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CLT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. 5.1 THE ID. C1T(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN UPHOLDING IN PRINCIPLE THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE LOOSE PAPERS IN QUESTION E STABLISHED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ENGAGED IN UNACCOUNTED LOANS AND CHARGING OF INTERE ST INCOME. THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY CIT(A) TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN THE CONCERN ED YEARS ARE WHOLLY ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL SO THAT THE SAME DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 30. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PLOT OF LAND ON 23.2.2005 FOR RS.59,000/- AND CONSTRUCTED THE HOUSE FOR RS.6,40,000/- AND VALUE OF THE HOUSE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3. 2006 WAS RS.7,05,000/-. THE SAID HOUSE WAS SOLD ON 16.10.2006 AT RS.7,00,000/- TO SHRI M.K. VERMA. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A PAPER BEARING ANNEXU RE BS-9/1, PAGE NO.38 WAS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES, WHICH SH OWED THE TOTAL SALE VALUE OF RS.12,72,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY. THE ASSESSEE, INTER ALIA , SUBMITTED THAT THE LOOSE PAPER FOUND DID NOT CONT AIN HER NAME NOR CONTAINED THE NAME OF SHRI M.K. VERMA, PUR CHASER OF THE BUILDING. SHE ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI M.K. VERMA, WHEREI N HE CONFIRMED TO HAVE MADE THE PAYMENT OF RS.7,00,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF R ESIDENTIAL BUILDING. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO. HE RELYING ON THE PROVISION OF SECTION 292C(III) AND THE VALUE RE PORT OF THE DVO, WHO HAD VALUED THE PROPERTY AT RS.10,52,640/- HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY AT RS.12,72,000/- AND ACCORDING PROCEEDED TO WORK OUT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS OF RS.12,72,000/- AND WOR KED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.5,67,000/- (RS.12,72,000/- MINUS RS.7,05,000) AS UNDISCLOSED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND ADDED TO THE INCOME. 31. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPE LLANT. THE COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THE CONTENTS OF ANY DOCUMENT S HAVE TO BE READ AS A WHOLE. IN SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 14 THE PRESENT CASE, THE PAGE NO.38 OF THE ANNEXURE BS -9/1, CLEARLY INDICATES THAT COST OF PROPERTY AT RS.12,50,000/- AND MAINTENANCE AND OTHE R CHARGES AT RS.22,000/- TOTALING TO RS.12,72,000/-. THE FACT IS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR RS.12,72,000/- IS FURTHER CORROBORATED BY PAGE NO.3 4 OF THE SAID ANNEXURE, WHEREIN DETAILS OF CHEQUE PAYMENTS AND LOAN AMOUNTS HAVE BE EN NOTED. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.6,50,000/- HAS BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THE PROPERTY. BESIDES, THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DENA BANK, AS OUTLINED BY THE AO AT P ARA 4.6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN A LOAN OF RS.6,50,000/- FOR THE SAID PROPERTY. IN OTHER WORDS, IF PAGE NOS.34, 38 AND P AGE NO.2 OF THE SAID ANNEXURE ARE CORRELATED, THEN IT IS APPARENT THAT THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY IS RS.12,72,000/-. NO PROPER EXPLANATIONS AS REGARDS TO THE CONTENTS OF THESE DOCUMENTS ARE FORTHCOMING FROM THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS CONFIRMED IN PRINCIPLE. HOWEVER, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO REWORK OUT THE UNACCOUNTED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, ADDITIONS MADE AND CONFIRMED IN APPEAL, ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY IN A.Y.2005-05 AND A.Y.2006-07. THIS GROU ND OF APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. 32. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 33. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR REITERATED THE SUBMIS SIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND THE CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD FILED AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY SHRI M.K. VERMA STATING THAT HE MADE A PAYMENT OF RS.7,00,000/- FOR THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FROM THE A SSESSEE. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT TO THE REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO, WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE AO AT PAGE NOS.12 AND 13 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AND FROM THAT, HE POINTED OUT THAT THE LOOSE PAPER BEARS SOME SALE CALCULATION WITH RE FERENCE TO ANY BUILDING WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN IN ANY REGISTERED SOCIETY WHICH CHARG ED MAINTENANCE CHARGES AND TRANSFER FEES. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SI NCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ANY MAINTENANCE OR TRANSFER FEES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LOOSE PAPER CO NTAINED DATE OF 21.8.2006, WHICH MEANS THAT THE SALE TRANSACTIONS MIGHT HAVE B EEN CARRIED OUT ON 21.8.2006, WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE ISSUED AFTER 20.9.2006 AND SALE DEED FOR THE SAME WAS EXEC UTED ON 16.10.2006. HE, THEREFORE, REITERATED THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO SUBMIT TED THAT DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS NO PAPER, AGREEMENT TO SELL ETC. WITH R ESPECT TO SALE TRANSACTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WAS FOUND. HE, THUS, SUBMITT ED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 15 AO IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE SAME NEEDS TO BE DE LETED. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 34. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE AD DITION HAS NOTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH INDICATE THE COST OF PROPERTY TO BE RS 12,72,000 WHICH WAS FURTHER CORROBORATED BY THE DET AILS OF CHEQUE AMOUNT FOUND IN THE NOTINGS. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE THE TOTAL SALES CONSI DERATION OF PROPERTY WAS RS 12,72,000/-. THE AFORESAID FINDING OF CIT(A) HAS NO T BEEN CONTROVERTED BY ASSESSEE BY BRINGING ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL ON RECOR D. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID WE AGREE WITH THE FINDING OF CIT(A). HOWEVER, FOR T HE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, WE DIRECT THE CAPITAL GAIN S BE WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF ADDITION CONFIRMED BY US FOR AY 2005-06 AND AY 2006 -07 HEREINABOVE. WE THUS DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 35. GROUND NO. 4 & 5 ARE INTERCONNECTED AND THEREF ORE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. 36. ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION, THE AO NOTICED THAT SOME ENTRIES OF AMOUNT AND WORKING OF INTEREST FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD. ACCORDING TO THE DOCUMENTS FOUND, ASSESSEE HAD CHARGED INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 27% FOR A PARTICULA R PERIOD ON THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED AGAINST THE NOTINGS BUT IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE INTEREST INCOME AT 18%. THE AO, THER EFORE, CONSIDERED THE AMOUNT AGGREGATED TO RS.15,61,397/- (RS.14,40,000/- PLUS RS.1,21,397/-),THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE LISTED AT PAGE NO.2 OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER, AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSE SSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A), AND THE CIT(A) GRANTED PART RELI EF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPEL LANT. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE AO AT PARA 3.9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ADDITION OF RS.15,61,397/- SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 16 HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF ANNEXURE BS-1, PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS MENTIONED IN THE INSTANT APPELLATE ORDER, THE DOCUM ENT IN QUESTION WAS RECOVERED FROM THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT4 AND IT WAS PARTLY WRITTEN IN THE HAND WRITING OF THE HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT. AS THE DO CUMENT WAS DISCOVERED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT, THE ONUS IS ON THE APPEL LANT TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND CONTENTS OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT HAS TO BE TAKEN AS TRUE. AS PER CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION, IT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE APPELL ANT IS ENGAGED IN ADVANCING UNACCOUNTED LOANS AND CHARGING THE INTEREST THEREON . THUS, THE ADDITIONS ARE CONFIRMED IN PRINCIPLE. HOWEVER, FROM THE SAID DO CUMENT, IT APPEARS THAT AMOUNT OF RS.3,75,000/- WAS ADVANCED ON 14.3.2006. THIS DATE WOULD FALL DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y.2006-07. DITTO FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,35,000/- WHICH HAS BEEN ADVANCED ON 17.03.2006. SIMILARLY, THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,75,000/- HAS BEEN ADVANCED ON 28.3.2005 AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DATE OF ADVANCEME NT OF THIS LOAN WOULD BE RELEVANT TO A.Y.2005-06. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE SUCH ADDITIONS FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS DEEMED FIT IN THE EARLIER YEARS. HOWEVER, THE UNACCOUNTED INTEREST INCOME IS REQUIRE D TO BE TAXED ON THE BASIS OF YEAR OF RECEIPT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. 37. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 38. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE CHART REPRODUCED BY THE AO AT PAGE NO.2 OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, AND POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF FIVE ITEMS LISTED IN THE TABLE, THE AMOUNTS OF RS.3,75,000/-, RS.2,35,000/- AND RS.1,75,000/- ARE STATED TO BE FO R THE PERIOD PERTAINING TO EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITIO N OF THE SAME COULD BE MADE IN A.Y.2007-08. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT, IF AT A LL THE ADDITION COULD BE MADE IT CAN BE OF ONLY RS.4,55,000/- AND RS.2,00,000/- W HICH PERTAINED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE RATE AT 27% ON ESTIMATE BASIS WITHOU T THERE BEING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIO N NEEDS TO BE DELETED. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 39 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE CHART WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE AO AT PAGE NO.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT COULD BE SEEN THAT OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.14,40,000/-, RS.4,55,000/- PERTAINED TO THE PERI OD 5.7.2006 TO 8.8.2006 AND SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 17 RS.2,00,000/- PERTAINED TO THE PERIOD 11.4.2006 TO 18.8.2006 AND THEREFORE BOTH THESE AMOUNT FALL IN A.Y. 07-08. APART FROM THIS A MOUNTS, ALL OTHER AMOUNTS PERTAINED TO THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS ALSO THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS, THE DOCUMENTS FOUND REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CHAR GED INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 27%. SINCE THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINED TO THE PERIOD U NDER CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTERES T AT 27% CAN BE MADE ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,55,000/- AND RS.2,00,000/-. FURTHER , SINCE THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,55,000/- AND RS.2,00,000/- PERTAINED TO THE YE AR UNDER REVIEW, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY SATISFACTORY EXP LANATIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION IS TO BE SUSTAINED FOR THE AFORES AID TWO AMOUNTS. THE AO, IS THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO RE-CALCULATE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.6,55,000/- AND INTEREST ON THE SAME BE CHARGED A T 27%. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 40. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED IT(SS)A NOS. 257/AHD/2013 & 333 TO 338/AHD/2013 (FO R A.YS. 2001- 02 & 2007-08) 41. THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEES ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AGAINST IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. SINCE SIMILAR ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 42. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE THE APPEALS, BEING IT(SS)A NOS. 333 TO 338/AHD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-2002 TO 2007-2008. 43. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SOLE EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE AGAINST IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 18 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT FACTS OF THE CA SE IN THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR EXCEPT QUANTUM OF PENALTY, AND THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE ADJUDICATED ACCORDINGLY. THE LEARNED DR HAS NOT DISPUTED THE S UBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 44. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). AS THE BRIEF FACTS EMERGE FROM THE RECORD, DURING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153A(1)(B) OF THE ACT, FROM T HE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS, THE AO FOUND CER TAIN ENTRIES INDICATING AMOUNTS OF INTEREST CALCULATED AT THE RATE 27% ON T HE AMOUNT LENT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DENIED THE SAME AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A O THAT INTEREST WAS CHARGED ONLY AT THE RATE OF 18%. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THI S CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE FACT A ND CHARGED INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 27% ON THE MONIES LENT AS AGAINST 18% SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE RESPECTIVE ADDI TIONS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A ). IN VIEW OF THIS, THE INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT AND IMPOSED PENALTY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL, WHICH WA S ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 45. WE FIND THAT IN QUANTUM APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS HAS BEEN ORDERED TO BE DELETED AND THUS THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY US HEREINABOVE. THUS, IN THE QUANTU M APPEAL SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCEEDED AND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ON SUCH ADDITION NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS LEVIABLE. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF THE LAW THAT WHEN AN ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) DOES NOT SURVIVE AND LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. IN TH IS VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 19 CANCEL THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 46. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED. IT(SS)A.NO.257/AHD/2013 (A.Y.2007-2008) 47. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.6,07,785/- LEVIED UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 48. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY WAS IMPOSED ON ACCOUNT OF THREE ADDITIONS, VIZ. (A) UNDISCLOSED INTEREST OF RS.4,62,264/- (B) UNACCOUNTED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GA IN OF RS.5,67,000/- AND (C) UNDISCLOSED INTEREST AND ADVANCES OF RS.7,76,397/- MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE N OT BASED ON ANY CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZ URE OPERATIONS BUT ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTIVE INTERPRETATION OF CERTAIN LOOS E PAPERS FOUND, WHICH WERE WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE AND DID NOT BELONG TO THE A SSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION/PENALTY COULD BE MADE WITHOUT ANY MATER IAL OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT, AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY SHOULD BE D ELETED. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 49. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIN D THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE IMPOSED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) ON ACCOUNT OF THREE ADDITIONS VIZ. (I) ADDITION DUE TO EXCESS CALCULATION OF INTE REST ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER, (II) UNACCOUNTED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, AND (III) UNACCOUNTED LOAN AND CHARGING OF INTEREST. SO FAR AS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCE SS CALCULATION OF INTEREST, THE SAME WAS DELETED BY US, HEREINABOVE IN ASSESSEES Q UANTUM APPEAL. THEREFORE, SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 20 SINCE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS RATE OF INT EREST HAS BEEN ORDERED TO BE DELETED, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE REVENU E AUTHORITIES DOES NOT HAVE FOOT TO STAND, AND HENCE LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. T HEREFORE, WE CANCEL THE PENALTY QUA UNDISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME AND QUASH THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO THAT EXTENT. SO FAR AS IMPOSITION OF PENALTY QU A UNACCOUNTED LOANS AND CHARGING OF INTEREST INCOME IS CONCERNED, WE IN THE ASSESSEES QUANTUM APPEAL HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNTS PERTAINI NG TO THE PERIOD OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ONLY. WE FIND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE AND CONVINCING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, THE REVENUE MAY JUSTIFY DISALLOW ARE BUT IN THE MATTER OF PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS, THE ONUS LIES HEAVILY ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALE D ITS INCOME OR HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. IT IS A SETT LED LEGAL POSITION THAT THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT FROM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AND THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT THOUGH IT MAY CONSTITUTE GOOD EVIDEN CE BUT SAME IS NOT CONCLUSIVE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, MER ELY BECAUSE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED IN APPEAL, IT CANNOT BE THE SOLE GRO UND FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED ANY INCO ME. A CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME HAS TO BE EVALUAT ED IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF EXPLN. 1 TO S. 271(1)(C), AS PER WHICH IF IN RELATI ON TO ANY ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION OR O FFERS EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND TO BE FALSE OR IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTITUTE THE EXPLANATION AND IS ALSO NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE, THE ADD ITION MADE WOULD AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. REGARDING PEN ALTY QUA ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE ADDITIO N HAS BEEN SUSTAINED ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT NO PE NALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CAN BE LEVIED WHEN THE ADDITION IS ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION. WE THEREFORE DIRECT ITS DELETION. IN THE RESULT THE PENALTY LEVIED IN THE PRESENT CAS E IS DELETED. 50. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. SMT. HEMANBEN ASHOKKUMAR BAROT (8 APPEALS) 21 51. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF IT(SS)A NOS. 286 TO 289/AHD/2011AND 333 TO 338/AHD/2013 AND 257/AHD/2013 ARE ALLOWED & IT(S S)A NOS. 290 & 291/AHD/2011 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. ( G.C. GUPTA ) VICE- PRESIDENT ( ANIL CHATURVEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION : 19-03-2014 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER. : 29-05-2014 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S : 29-05-2014 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT. : 30-05-2014 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER : 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. : 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK. : 30-05-2014 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. : 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. : 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER :