Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Vraj Developers, Baroda vs Department Of Income Tax on 12 May, 2010
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH "A"
BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date of hearing: 12.5.10 Drafted on:12.05.2010
ITA No.19/AHD/2008 With
Cross Objection No.59/Ahd/2008
Assessment Year : 2004-2005
The Assistant Vs. M/s. Vraj Developers,
Commissioner of Income 32. Parshottam Nagar,
th
Tax, Circle-2(2), 4 BPC Road,
Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Urmi Cross Road,
Race course circle, Baroda.
Baroda.
PAN/GIR No. : AABFV2560P
(APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT)
Appellant by : Shri Dr. Jayant Javeri Sr. D.R.
Respondent by: Shri Vartik Choksi C.A.
ORDER
PER N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :-
This is an appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee against the order of the ld.CIT(Appeals)-II, Baroda dated 25.10.2007.
2. Ground of the appeal reads as under:-
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.36,77,819/- made on the basis of percentage of completion method as per revised Accounting Standard-7 (AS-7), with the observation that AS-7 does not apply to the assessee's case who is a builder and not a construction contractor, without taking note of para.1 of AS-7 clearly enjoining that this Accounting Statement also applies to enterprises undertaking construction activities "not as contractors -2- but on their own as a venture of commercial nature where the enterprise has entered into agreement for sale", as was the case here.
2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that it is AS-9 that is applicable to the case of the assessee, without appreciating that AS- 9 deals with revenue recognition in general and para 2 of AS-9 specifically excludes construction contractors (including builders selling the units by agreement for sale), and that in view of peculiar nature of the product in the case of builders involving considerable gestation period, general rules regarding sale of goods cannot apply.
3. The ld, CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, in the case of builders, each fraction of work completed is embedded with profits and hence the revenue is recognized with reference to the stage of completion reached at the end of the accounting year determined as the proportion of costs incurred to the estimated total costs as per para 9.2 of AS-7, which is in conformity with the principles of law regarding accrual when applied to the specific facts of builders.
4. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that charging section 4 of the Income-tax Act treats previous year as the unit of charge and hence profit from any business venture has to be taxed in each previous year irrespective of the span of activity spreading beyond the previous year and the profit of one year cannot be postponed to the subsequent year(s) as settled in the case of CIT Vs. British Paints India Ltd. 168 ITR 44 (SC)and as laid down in the specific context of builders in the following decisions:
(i) SukhdevJalan Vs. CIT 26 ITR 617(Pal)
(ii) Tirathram Ahuja Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT 103 ITR 15(Del) confirmed in 186 ITR 428 (SC)
(iii) CIT Vs. Nandram Huntram 103 ITR 433 (Orissa)
(iv) Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 127 ITR 21 (Del)."
3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has observed as under:-
"3. The second ground of appeal is against addition of Rs.36,77,819/- on account of work-in-progress.-3-
3.1. The issue is discussed in detail at Para-3 of the assessment, which is reproduced here below ;
"3. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found by the Assessing Officer that the appellant has followed work completion method. However, as per AS-7 accounting principals refers only percentage completion method to be followed in such type of construction contract activities. During the course of assessment proceedings, vide questionnaire dated 14.08.2006, the assessee was asked to furnish the complete details of work-in- progress. In response, vide letter dated 12.9.2006, the assessee has submitted only that closing work-in-progress is Rs.2,04,41,717/-. The assessee has not submitted any reply in respect of the fact that whether it is following the percentage completion method or not. The assessee has shown work-in-progress amount to Rs.2,04,41,717/- and in Balance sheet the assessee has shown advances from customers of Rs.23,25,223/-. In this case, the assessee has entered into agreement with various buyers and also collected proportionate sale consideration as advance amounting to Rs.23,25,223/- which corresponds to the work done during the year under consideration amounting to Rs.2,04,41,717/- shown as work-in-progress.
3.1. Institutes of Chartered Accountants of India have also withdrawn the project completion method from the accounting standards laid down by it. This also proves that the project completion method was not correct method for recognition of the revenue. It is settled legal position that the income accrued on day to day basis simultaneously which the progress in the work done. This view gets support from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Tirathram Ahuja Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 103 ITR 15. Thus, it is clear that what the assessee has shown booking advances are in fact the part payments for the units proposed to be sold to the unit buyers. In view of the above facts and circumstances, income is being assessed on the basis of percentage completion method. The opening stock of work-in-progress is at Rs.22,43,700/- and the closing stock of work-in-progress is Rs.2,04,41,717/-. The value of work-in-progress comes to Rs.l,81,98,017/- after reducing the opening stock of work-in-progress from closing of work-in- progress."
3.2. It is contended by the ld.counsel that the appellant is engaged in the construction contract and therefore the Assessing Officer reached a conclusion that the income should be assessed on the -4- basis of percentage completion method. It is also contended that the Assessing Officer has neither issued any show cause notice nor even asked any question regarding the valuation of work-in- progress and made addition without giving any opportunity being heard. The appellant follows mercantile method of accounting and fair revenue recognition. Appellant has been consentingly recognizing revenue from various projects undertaken by it in the year of sale or when possession of unit has been transferred in favour of buyer of property and the assessing officer has wrongly assumed that appellant has been following project completion method. It is stated that under such project completion, entire cost is carried forward as closing stock till the date of completion of entire project and revenue is recognized when the project is completed whereas in case of appellant it is not so as it has not been recognizing revenue on completion of entire project but showing income in the year in which possession of any unit is given to buyer irrespective of the fact whether entire project has been completed or not.
It is further stated that it has undertaken two projects viz, Sakar II and Spring View during the year under consideration. As Sakar II was completed during the year, it has recognized entire income during the year under consideration in profit & loss account filed along with return of income. As project being Spring View has just commenced in A.Y.2004-2005 and initial work has been completed, entire cost relating to said project has been shown as part of Work in Progress and revenue has been recognized in subsequent assessment years in the year of sale or when possession has been given to buyer.
The appellant further submitted that the appellant is builder and is engaged in the construction and sale of immovable properties and therefore, for recognition of revenue, the provisions of AS-9 on "Revenue Recognition' issued by ICAI shall be applicable. It has relied on para-11 of the said AS. The appellant also stated that it has been following aforesaid method of accounting on year to year basis and same has not been disputed by department in earlier year.
Without prejudice to above, appellant further stated that it is settled law that the assesses has a right to value the closing stock of work in progress at cost price or market price whichever is lower. Further, the appellant has been consistently following the same method of accounting and method of valuation. The Assessing -5- Officer has, therefore, an erroneous conception or a mistaken notion in estimating the value of closing stock of work in progress and applying gross profit ratio. Appellant's factual submissions is quoted below :
"1.6 The appellant further states that while making aforesaid addition, the Assessing officer has heavily relied on Revised Accounting Standard 7 issued by ICAI and assumed that as assessee is engaged in the construction contract and therefore, reached a conclusion that the income should be assessed on the basis of percentage completion method.
In this conned ion, appellant state that it is not engaged in the work of carrying out construction contracts. In fact, it is a builder and is engaged in construction and sale of immovable properties hence revised Accounting Standard 7 is not applicable in case of it. In this background, it may be important to consider the AS-7, on which the Assessing Officer has heavily relied on for making the addition. The objective of the said AS-7 is as under :
"The objective of this Statement is to prescribe the accounting treatment of revenue and costs associated with construction contracts. ..............................."
Further paragraph-2 of the said AS- 7 defines the construction contracts as under:
"A construction contract is a contract specifically negotiated far the construction of an asset or a combination of assets that are closely interrelated or interdependent in terms of their design, technology and function or their ultimate purpose or use."
Thus, in case of construction contract, the contractor carry out the construction work on behalf of the other person, who has awarded the said contract to him. However, in case of builders, they build the immovable properties for sale to customers. Therefore, in such cases there is no construction contract. Since, the appellant is a builder, the AS-7 is not applicable in the case of the assessee and it is not bound to follow percentage completion method of accounting. The addition made by assessing officer following -6- percentage completion method of accounting is without any has and requires to be deleted.
1.7 The appellant states that while making aforesaid addition, the Assessing Officer has relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Tirath Ram Ahuja Pvt. Ltd v. CIT [1976] 103-ITR-J5 (Del). However, it may be pointed out that the said decision, the Court has held as under:
"In the case of contract, profits can he estimated on the basis of receipts in each year and one need not waif till the completion of contract"
Thus, the above decision is also given in respect of profit from a contract. As the appellant is not engaged in the contract work but in business of construction, the said decision is not applicable in the case of the assessee. It is stated that the facts in that case were that the assesses had entered into a contract for construction of the bridge and it had spent Rs.13,43,131 on the said work which had to he abandoned due to outbreak of war between India and Pakistan and it received only Rs.11,11,1000 from the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The Tribunal in the aforesaid case found that the said sum was the income of the assessee as the same was not repayable. Further, the company was not in a position at the end of the accounting period to arrive at the work-in-progress also in view of the peculiar facts. In was in this context that the Honorable High Court made the observations authorizing the estimation of profits of each year even though the contract was not completed. Whereas in the case before us, the amounts received by the assessee are as advance and same were repayable if sale deed is not executed. It is further reiterated that appellant has not been following project completion method of accounting. Even in case of appellant, value of work in progress is clearly determinable which /was not in case of Delhi High court hence decision relied upon by AO is not applicable to present case.
1.8 The appellant states that AO has applied % of gross profit on work in progress as assessee has received advance sales consideration for Rs.23,25,223 during the year.
-7-In this connection, appellant states project " SPRING VIEW" has scheme of 25 duplex and closing work in progress of Rs.2,04,41,717 comprising of land cost at Rs.1,72,07,671 and material & other allied cost for Rs.32,34,036. It is stated that aforesaid project is at initial stage, no major work has been carried out and majority portion of closing work in progress being 84.18% is of land cost therefore AO has erred in applying gross profit ratio on entire amount of work in progress as significant construction work is not incurred during the year. It is stated that no hypothetical profit can be earned by appellant only on purchase of land of project as completion of entire project comes on construction of housing units and not on purchase of land only.
Apart from above, appellant states that it can be seen from following chart that major cost relating to project being purchase of building material, labour cost etc. excluding land has been incurred in subsequent assessment years and not in current assessment year and which will further prove that no substantial construction has been carried out during the year hence no estimation of profit can be made by applying gross profit on closing work in progress as substantial work relating to construction has been carried out in A. Y. 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.
Particulars of Cost % Cost % Cost % of Total
major cost incurred in of Incurred of incurred total
A.Y. 2004- total In A.Y. total in A.Y.. cost
2005 cost 2005- cost 2006-
2006 2007
Building Materials 14.10,074 12.00 85.96,719 73.20 17,37,530 14.80 1,17.44.323
including cement,
iron. Kapachi,
electric goods etc.
Labour expenses 4.29,540 4.58 57,52.553 61.30 32,02.517 34.12 93,84,610
Site Expneses 11.473 4.33 1.57.153 50.41 95.893 36.26 2,64,519
Total of above 18,51,087 8.65 1,45,06,425 67.81 50,35,940 23.54 2,13,93,452
It can be seen from above details that only 12% of total material cost. nearly 4.5% to 5% of total labour & site expenses and only 8.65% of total cost has been incurred during the year and balance -8- expenditure has been incurred in subsequent assessment years which corresponds to income shown in such assessment year and prove (hat entire project is at initial stage in current year. Hence it cannot be concluded that project is partially completed and profit has accrued to assessee. The Appellant states that as per Accounting Standard 7 "Construction contracts" issued by ICAI, even in percentage completion method of accounting, it is stated that outcome of the contract cannot be estimated in the early stage of contract where only 20 to 25% of work is completed. Since major portion of the construction work is yet to be completed and keeping in view the contingencies that may arise in future, it is considered prudent not to recognize any profit at such early stage. The said Accounting standard states that at the end of the financial year, the cost of such work completed which is less than 20% to 25% is carried over as Work in progress. This is so because that the enterprise will atleast recover the contract cost incurred. It can be seen from above facts that as in the case of appellant, less that 10% of total work has been completed during the year, even AS 7 issued by ICAI does not require assessee to recognize revenue in percentage completion method.
In view of such facts, there is no justification in estimating gross profit on closing work in progress nor estimating profit on advances as entire project undertaken by appellant is at early stage. Apart from above, appellant submits (he break up of advances received during the year for 9 duplexes for Rs.23,25,223 , its subsequent realizations and when income has been offered in return of income as under:
Duplex No Amount % of Amount Amount Sales Value received in total received in received in A. Y. 2004- agreed A.Y. 2005-06 A. Y. 2006-
2005 as sales towards sales 07 towards
advance value value sales value
2&3 3,22.222 10.19 27,43.259 96,717 31,62.198
4 2,00,000 11.43 13.50,000 2,00,000 17,50,000
5 4,00,000 23.51 13,01,000 -- 17,01,000
7.24
15 1,50,001 16,22,000 3,00.000 20,72,000
21 & 22 4,00,000 13.92 17,62,379 35,000 28,76,000
23 3,53,000 20.17 13,96.999 --- 17,49,999
24 1.00,000 6.06 15,50,000 --- 16,50,000
25 4,00,000 16.80 19,80,650 - 23,80,650
Total 23,25,223 13.95 1,37,06,287 6,31,717 1,66,63,227
-9-
Total sale 3,83,24,879 74,01,000 4,57,25,354
value (Offered as (Offered
of income in as Income
project A.Y.05-06) in A. K 06-07)
With regards to observation of AO that assesses has shown hooking advances are part payments for the units proposed to be sold in unit buyers hence income is required to be assessed on percentage completion method of account, the appellant states that it can be seen from above fact that booking advances received during the year are only 13.95% of total sales consideration of such duplexes and 5.09% of total sales consideration of project referred herein above hence it cannot be said that assessee has received major consideration during the year against sale of aforesaid duplexes leading to estimation of profit on closing work in progress.
It is stated that majority portion of amount against sales of aforesaid
9 duplexes had been received in A. Y. 2005-2006 and assessee company has recognized entire agreed sales consideration as income in that assessment year. It is further stated that though it has not received Rs.6,31,717 during the year out of total sales consideration of Rs.7,66,63,227, same has been recognized as income in A.Y. 2005-2006 as sales deeds have been executed / significant risks and rewards of ownership of such units have been transferred to buyer in that year.
Apart from above, the appellant states that as it is engaged in the business of construction of housing project or sale of land any advance money received towards sale cannot be considered as income or the same cannot be base for recognizing the income, unless the title was extinguished, Profit only arises on transfer of title and any amount towards earnest money or advance in installments, could never he taxed as taxable income in the year of receipt, as decided in Gujarat High court). It is also settled position in law that agreement of sale and some amount received in advance, profit would arise only on completion of sale, so it is assessable in the year of sale took place. The assessee derives support from the Honourable jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Motilal C. Patel (1988) 173 ITR 666 whereby court has held as under:
"Income Tax Income -- Accrual -- Sale Transaction Of Immovable Property, Unless Completed By Means Of
- 10 -
Registered Sale Deed, There Cannot Be Earning Of Any Profit "
In view of aforesaid facts, appellant stales that estimation of gross profit on work in progress is not justified and addition made by AO requires to be deleted. "
The appellant has also relied on the following case laws on the issue of valuation of closing stock :
1 Nandi Housing (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2003) 80 TTJ (Bang) 750 2 Chainrup Sampatram Vs CIT 24 ITR 481 3 ALA firm Vs. CIT 4 CIT Vs. Dynavisions Limited 267 ITR 600 5 CIT v. English Electric Co. of India Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 512 (Mad) 3.3. I have considered the submissions of the ld.counsel and facts of the case. It is not in dispute that appellant is a developer and not a contractor. Assessing Officer applied accounting standard-7 in the case of the appellant which is applicable for construction contracts.
Assessing Officer noticed from the balance-sheet that the work-in- progress shown in balance-sheet is Rs.2,04,41,717/- and advances received from customers Rs.23,25,223/-. He concluded that appellant had followed project completion method which was not correct for revenue. He referred the decision of Tirathram Ahuja that income accrued along with the progress of work done. He applied the gross profit rate of 20.21% to the work-in-progress and addition was made.
I have gone through the revised accounting standard-7 AS-7 is applicable for construction contracts for construction of assets such as bridges, buildings, dam, pipe-line, etc. It is clearly mentioned that AS-7 applies to contractors and not to enterprises that are constructing properties on their own account i.e. builders and developers. It is mentioned in response to a query by ICAI that in the case of builders and developers revenue recognition and valuation of inventories should be in accordance with AS-9 and AS-2 respectively. The enterprise should value the completed project as inventories held for sale in the ordinary course of business. The revenue should be recognition in accordance with AS-9 when each flat was sold. It is further clarified that AS-7 would apply when they are being constructed under a contract on behalf of a third party. From this discussion, it is clear that AS-7 is not applicable to the case of appellant and therefore the percentage
- 11 -
of gross profit applied by the Assessing Officer to work-in-progress is not justified.
What method the appellant is following is that sale of flats is considered as revenue the moment the possession of flat is given or the document is executed. Appellant is not following project completion method. In fact, out of the total work-in-progress of Rs.2,04,41,717/-, the land cost is Rs.1,72,07,671/- and material and other cost only Rs.32,34,036/-. This clearly shows that the above project is at an early stage. Substantial work has been carried out in subsequent years as mentioned by the appellant on the basis of financial statements. It is further submitted by the appellant that during the year not even 9% of the total work has been completed. In A.Y.2005-06 and 2006-07 (on the basis of P & L Account and balance-sheet submitted as per the records of Assessing Officer) appellant has offered sales of Rs.3.83 Crores and Rs.74 Lacs respectively. Even when the sale value received in total were Rs.1,66,63,227/-. From this, it is clear that appellant has offered the entire sales consideration though not received, as revenue since the work has been substantially done in subsequent years.
From the facts discussed above, it is clear that in the case of the appellant AS-7 does not apply and appellant is not following project completion method. Appellant is recognising the revenue as and when sale deeds were executed or possession of the flats were given. The revenues were recognised in subsequent year even when the sale consideration was not received to the large extent. Considering all these facts, I am of the view that there is no basis for Assessing Officer to conclude that the appellant is following project completion method and AS-7 applies in its case. Since closing stock has to be valued at cost and cannot be valued at market value, profit estimated by the Assessing Officer on work-in- progress is without any legal basis. On the other hand the decision relied upon by the appellant supports the view that stock has to be valued at cost. Since the method of accounting following by appellant is as per proper accounting standard and substantial revenue has been recognised in subsequent year from this project, I do not see any basis for estimating gross profit on the work-in-progress. Addition made by the Assessing Officer is therefore deleted.
- 12 -
4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of builder and developer. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown closing work-in-progress of Rs.2,04,41,717/- which included land value of Rs.1,72,07,671/- and construction expenses of Rs.32,34,036/-. According to the Learned Assessing Officer, as per accounting standard issued by The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (in short 'ICAI') AS-7 the assessee should have shown income on the basis of percentage completion method and thus, the assessee should have offered income in respect of closing work- in-progress for taxation during the year under consideration. Thus, the Learned Assessing Officer estimated gross profit on the closing work-in- progress @ 20.21% and thereby added Rs.36,77,819/- to the income of the assessee. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was of the view that AS-7 was not applicable in the case of the assessee as the assessee was not a contractor. Further, the assessee followed AS-2 issued by ICAI for valuing closing inventory and has followed AS-9 for revenue recognition and therefore, there was no defect in the system of accounting followed by the assessee. He therefore deleted the entire addition of Rs.36,77,819/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer.
5. The Learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the Learned Assessing Officer and the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee supported the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and also placed reliance on the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nandi Housing (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2003) 80 TTJ 750 (Bang), wherein Tribunal followed decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Khoday Distillers Ltd. in ITRC Nos. 19 to 21 of 1993. Thus, it is observed that the issue which requires
- 13 -
our adjudication is that the income in the instant case is to be computed as per system of accounting followed by the assessee or as per accounting standard AS-7 for the purpose of charging of income tax. We find that the issue is to be decided in accordance with the provisions of section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A reading of section 145 of the Act shows that the business income which is assessable under the income Tax Act is to be computed in accordance with the consistent system of accounting followed by the assessee unless such system of accounting is defective and /or from such system of accounting, profit cannot be deduced. Thus, in our considered opinion, the option for choosing the system of account is with the assessee and not with the Learned Assessing Officer provided the system chosen by the assessee is consistently followed by him and such system is not a defective system. In our considered view, provisions of Accounting Standard-7 cannot override the provisions of section 145 in so far as the computation of business income under the Income Tax Act for the purpose of determining assessable income is concerned. In the instant case, we find that the Learned Assessing Officer has brought no material on record to show that the system of accounting adopted by the assessee for the year under appeal was not consistently followed by the assessee or the system adopted was a defective system. In our considered view, even a project completion method is also a recognised system of accounting. Simply The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India has recommended percentage completion method does not mean that project completion method if consistently followed by the assessee, the same is not a bonafide system of accounting or the same is a defective system of accounting. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has recorded a finding after perusing the assessment records of the subsequent years that the assessee has offered for taxation its income in the subsequent year as per the consistent system of accounting followed by
- 14 -
the assessee. The Learned Departmental Representative could not point out any error in the above finding of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and therefore, the same is upheld and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
5. Grounds of cross Objection reads as under:-
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the respondent's case, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.25,000 out of labour expenses, carting expenses, site expenses and freight and octroi expenses when no such expenses is called for.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the respondent's case, the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's claim that it was not at all a fit case for levy of interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C of the IT. Act.
6. At the time of the hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that he is not pressing the above grounds of Cross Objection taken in Cross Objection filed by the assessee . Hence, they are dismissed for want of prosecution.
7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee both are dismissed.
Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on this 14th day of May, 2010 Sd/- sd/-
( MAHAVIR SINGH) ( N.S. SAINI )
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
th
Ahmedabad; On this 14 day of May 2010
Paras
- 15 -
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT Concerned
4. The ld. CIT(Appeals)-XIX, Ahmedabad.
5. The DR, Ahmedabad Bench
6. The Guard File.
BY ORDER,
स᭜यािपत ᮧित //True Copy//
(Dy./Asstt.Registrar), ITAT, Ahmedabad
Date Initials
1. Draft dictated on 12.05.2010 -------------------
2. Draft Placed before authority 13.05.2010 -------------------
3. Draft proposed & placed 13.05.2010 ------------------- JM
Before the Second Member
4. Draft discussed/approved 13.05.2010 ------------------- JM
By Second Member
5. Approved Draft comes to P.S 13.05.2010 --------------------
6. Kept for pronouncement on 14.05.2010 --------------------
7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 14.05.2010 --------------------
8. Date on which file goes to the ---------------- --------------------
9. Date of dispatch of Order ---------------- ---------------------