Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Valecha Engineering Ltd., Mumbai vs Assessee on 22 December, 2003
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES "D"
BEFORE SHRI R.V. EASWAR, SR. V.P. AND SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, A.M.
IT(SS)A No. 119/Mum/2004
Block Period 1.4.90 to 21.12.2000
A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 43,
6th Floor, R. No. 609,
Aayakar Bhawan,
M.K. Road,
MUMBAI - 400 020.
Vs.
M/s Valecha Engineering Ltd.,
Valecha Chambers, 4th floor,
Plot no. B-6,
Andheri New Link Road,
Andheri (West),
Mumbai -49.
PAN AAACV 2288 G
Appellant
Respondent
IT(SS)A No. 23/Mum/2004
Block Period 1.4.90 to 21.12.2000
M/s Valecha Engineering Ltd.,
Valecha Chambers, 4th floor,
Plot no. B-6,
Andheri New Link Road,
Andheri (West),
Mumbai -49.
PAN AAACV 2288 G
Vs.
A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 43,
6th Floor, R. No. 609,
Aayakar Bhawan,
M.K. Road,
MUMBAI - 400 020.
Appellant
Respondent
Assessee by
Shri Prakash Jothawani
Department by
Shri R.N. Jha
ORDER
PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M.
PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. These two appeals, one by the assessee being IT(SS)A No. 23/Mum/04 and other by the Revenue being IT(SS)A No. 117/Mum/04, are cross appeals which are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) Cent. IV, Mumbai dated 22.12.2003.
2. The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of development of infrastructure such as construction of highways, dams, flyovers, bridges etc. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 was conducted at the business premises of the assessee as well as at the residence of its directors Mr. V.P. Valecha and Mr. J.K. Valecha on 12.12.2000. Consequent to the search operation, a notice u/s. 158 BC was issued by the A.O. on 1.6.2001 in response to which the return was filed by the assessee on 16.7.2001 disclosing its undisclosed income for the block period at Rs. 1.20 crores. On the basis of documents found and seized during the course of search as well as the enquiries made by him during the course of block assessment proceedings, the undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period was determined by the A.O. at Rs. 3,81,04,160/- after making various additions in the assessment completed u/s. 158 BC vide an order dated 31.12.2002. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee company before him as well as the material available on record, the ld. CIT(A) deleted most of the additions made by the A.O. to the undisclosed income of the assessee and sustained the balance additions. He, thus, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 22.10.2003 and aggrieved by the same, the assessee and Revenue both have preferred these appeals before the Tribunal.
3. First, we shall take up the appeal of the Revenue, ground No. 1 of which challenges the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,46,418/- made by the A.O. on account of unrecorded receipts.
4. During the course of search conducted at the residence of Mr. J.K. Valecha and Mr. V.P. Valecha, directors of the assessee company, certain incriminating documents were found and seized. Out of the said documents, page No. 29 & 30 of a file containing 32 loose papers contained unrecorded cash transactions. In the statement recorded during the course of search, Mr. J.K. Valecha accepted the fact that the said cash transactions represented project kickbacks and project cash receipts withdrawn from the company's accounts which were not reflected in the books. Similarly, loose papers No. 1 to 4 seized from the residence of Mr. V.P. Valecha admittedly contained unrecorded cash transactions. In the details of undisclosed income of Rs. 1.20 crores declared in its return for the block period furnished by the assessee, total receipts as per loose papers No. 1 to 4 seized from the residence of Mr. V.P. Valecha and as per loose papers No. 29 & 30 seized from the residence of Mr. J.K. Valecha were shown by the assessee at Rs. 07,06,618/- and Rs. 63,79,887/- respectively. From the total of these two sums, deductions were claimed by the assessee on account of opening balance, director's imprest etc. and the net amount of Rs. 1,12,08,366/- was offered as its undisclosed income as reflected in the relevant seized documents. The A.O., however, allowed deduction only on account of opening balance of Rs. 7,31,727/- as reflected in the relevant seized documents found from the residence of Mr. J.K. Valecha and the balance amount of Rs. 1,53,54,784/- was brought to tax by him as undisclosed income of the assessee on the basis of relevant documents found and seized from the residence of Mr. V.P. Valecha and Mr. J.K. Valecha as against the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,12,08,366/- offered by the assessee company in its return which resulted in the addition of Rs. 41,46,480/- to the undisclosed income of the assessee.
5. While challenging the aforesaid addition made by the A.O. to its undisclosed income, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee company before the ld. CIT(A) that certain notings in the relevant seized documents represented cash received back out of imprest account, advances and loans given at the earlier dates. It was contended that since such amounts given on imprest account as well as towards advances and loans on earlier dates were out of undisclosed income of the assessee already declared, the refund of the said amounts could not be considered again as undisclosed income of the assessee. It was contended that the said amounts, therefore, were not considered by the assessee as part of its undisclosed income in the return filed for the block period and the action of the A.O. in considering the same as undisclosed income of the assessee has resulted in double addition. Details of such amount were also furnished by the assessee pointing out that cash received back was to the extent of Rs. 37,65,000/- and interest paid as per seized document was to the extent of Rs. 4,01,070/-. It was also contended that the noting on the relevant seized documents have to be considered in totality and if it is so done, it can be appreciated that action of the A.O. in considering these amounts as undisclosed income of the assessee has resulted in double addition.
6. After having perused the notings on the relevant seized documents, the ld. CIT(A) found merit in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee company on this issue. According to him, the A.O. had taken total of the receipts as per the relevant seized documents without giving any cognizance to the cash received out of cash advances given at an earlier stage which were recorded on the same seized documents. He held that cash received back by the assessee out of earlier advances could not be treated as revenue receipts going by the theory of recycling of funds. He held that the explanation offered by the assessee in this regard was reasonable and plausible and the amount of Rs. 37,65,000/- received back by the assessee in cash on account of advances given earlier could not be treated as its undisclosed income. He also noted that the amount of Rs. 4,01,070/- relating to payment of interest in cash over and above the interest of payment by cheque as reflected in the relevant documents had already been brought to tax in the hands of the concerned parties. He further noted that a sum of Rs. 19653/- on account of brokerage as reflected in the relevant seized document was duly declared by the assessee company as its undisclosed income. He held that nothing more than what was already declared by the assessee in its return of income thus was chargeable to tax as its undisclosed on the basis of relevant seized documents and accordingly the addition of Rs. 41,46,418/- made by the A.O. to the undisclosed income of the assessee was deleted by the ld. CIT(A).
7. The learned D.R. submitted that the undisclosed income of the assessee on the basis of notings made on the relevant seized documents was rightly worked out by the A.O. at Rs. 1,53,54,784/- as against Rs. 1,12,08,366/- declared by the assessee. He submitted that none of the transactions reflected in the said seized documents including cash receipts were routed through the regular bank account of the assessee company and this position was accepted by its director in his statement recorded during the course of search. He contended that all the receipts reflected in the said seized documents thus represented undisclosed income of the assessee and the A.O. was fully justified in treating the total of such receipts as undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period. As regards the stand of the assessee that the cash receipts reflected in the relevant seized documents were out of loans and advances given earlier out of undisclosed income, he contended that no details of such loans and advances claimed to be given earlier are furnished by the assessee. He contended that admittedly none of the receipts reflected in the relevant seized documents was recorded in the regular bank account of the assessee company and in the absence of any satisfactory explanation offered by the assessee in respect of source of any particular receipts, the total amount of such receipts was rightly treated by the A.O. as undisclosed income of the assessee.
8. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, invited our attention to the statement placed at page No. 53 to 58 of his paper book giving the details of the notings on the relevant seized documents in a typed form. He pointed out that the said notings represented transactions relating to income, loans and advances, expenses etc. and accordingly bifurcation was also made by the assessee while working out its exact undisclosed income as reflected in the said seized documents. He invited our attention to such bifurcation given on page No. 59 to 62 of his paper book and submitted that the amounts representing cash received by the assessee on account of refund of advances given earlier was not taken into consideration while calculating the undisclosed income. H submitted that the said loans and advances given earlier were out of undisclosed income already declared by the assessee and the action of the A.O. in treating the refund of such loans and advances again as undisclosed income of the assessee clearly amounted to double addition.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. It cannot be denied that if the loans and advances were given by the assessee out of its undisclosed income as declared in the return on the basis of notings found to be made on the relevant seized documents, the refund of such loans and advances subsequently could not be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee as the same would amount to double addition. The question, however, is whether the amounts in question were actually received by the assessee on account of refund of the loans and advances claimed to be given out of its undisclosed income.
10. The relevant details in this regard are furnished by the assessee on pages 60 and 62 of the assessee's paper book which give a summary of loans and advances paid and received back during the relevant period as reflected in the relevant seized documents. A perusal of the said details shows that the narration given against the amounts paid as loans and advances is apparently different from the narration given against the amounts of receipts on account of refund of loans and advances. In order to claim that the receipts in question were on account of refund of loans and advances given earlier, it was necessary for the assessee to establish the co-relation between the loans and advances paid with the corresponding refund of loans and advances. The relevant dates of advances given and advances returned back are also vital in this context. It appears that no such exercise, however, was done by the ld. CIT(A) and the relief was given by him to the assessee on this issue merely on the basis of broad proposition that refund of loans and advances given by the assessee out of its undisclosed income could not be again treated as its undisclosed income going by the theory of recycling of funds. As already observed by us, there cannot be any dispute about this proposition. It is, however, necessary to establish the co-relation between the amounts claimed to be received on account of return of loans and advances with the amounts of such loans and advances stated to be given earlier out of the undisclosed income of the assessee. As this exercise has not been done by the ld. CIT(A) and it involves verification of the relevant record, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of A.O. with a direction to afford an opportunity to the assessee to establish such co-relation and to allow appropriate relief on the basis of verification of the assessee's claim on this issue. Ground no. 1 of Revenue's appeal is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
11. Ground No. 2 of Revenue's appeal and Ground No. 1 of assessee's appeal involve a common issue relating to the addition of Rs. 47,54,782/- made by the A.O. on account of undisclosed income relating to Panipat project which stands confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 6,79,784/-.
12. During the course of search, one Ajanta spiral pad containing pages...... was found and seized from the office premises of the assessee company. Page No. 3 & 4 of the said pad contained details of R.A. bills amounting to Rs. 9,51,97,800/- on the upper part. The lower part contained the details of expenses and payments aggregating to Rs. 17,48,676/- which were disallowable under the Income Tax Act. Page No. 7 of the said pad contained details of R.A. bills as well as MOB advance aggregating to Rs. 5,19,36,410/- as well as the details of expenses amounting to Rs. 18,54,158/- which were of disallowable nature as per Income Tax Act. Page No. 26 of the said pad contained the details of R.A. Bills raised till November, 1999 amounting to Rs. 10,00,0821/- as well as the details of expenses of disallowable nature amounting to Rs. 23,87,190/-. When these documents were confronted by the A.O. to the assessee company, the later explained that all the expenses and payments reflected in these documents are consolidated on page No. 41 of Annexure-5 found during the course of search and the same pertained to the payment made in relation to the Panipat project. It was contended that as clearly indicated in the relevant seized documents, out of the total amount of Rs. 64.87 lacs reflected therein, a sum of Rs. 40.75 lacs had already been paid whereas the remaining amount of Rs. 24.12 lacs was yet to be paid. It was submitted that the said amount of Rs. 45.75 lacs was paid by the assessee out of its undisclosed income of Rs. 1.20 crores declared in the return for the block period as shown in the working already furnished and the same being application of its undisclosed income by the assessee, no separate addition for the said amount was called for. The A.O., however, noted that similar notings were also made on page No. 95 of Annexure- 2 found during the course of search wherein speed money amounting to Rs. 47,54,784/-was shown to be paid in relation to the Panipat project. He, therefore, held that this entire amount paid by the assessee company represented its undisclosed income and the same was added by him in the hands of the assessee for the block period.
13. Before the ld. CIT(A), the submissions made before the A.O. on this issue were reiterated on behalf of the assessee company. It was contended that payments made as speed money in relation to Panipat project were reflected in the different seized documents and all these payments were again consolidated on page No. 41 of Annexure- 5 (A-5). It was contended that as per the said consolidated summary, a sum of Rs. 40.75 lacs had already been paid by the assessee whereas the remaining amount of Rs. 24.12 lacs was yet to be paid. It was contended that since the said amount of Rs. 40.75 lacs was paid out of undisclosed income already declared by the assessee, it was merely an application of undisclosed income for which no seperate addition was called for. The ld. CIT(A) on perusal of the relevant seized documents found merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee company on this issue. He noted that payment of speed money in relation to Panipat project was made by the assessee company out of its undisclosed income of Rs. 1.20 crores declared in the return for the block period and there was thus no justification to add the said amount again as it was merely an application of undisclosed income already taxed. He, however, noted that the liaison/speed money actually paid by the assesee as per the consolidated summary was to the extent of Rs. 47,54,784/- and not Rs. 40.75 lacs as shown by the assessee in the application of undisclosed income already declared. The addition made by the A.O. on this issue, therefore, was sustained by him to the extent of Rs. 6,79,784/- ( i.e. Rs. 47,54,784/- (-) Rs. 40,75,000 ). Aggrieved by the same, the assessee as well as the Revenue both have raised this issue in their respective appeals filed before the Tribunal.
14. The learned D.R. submitted that out of the addition of Rs. 47.54 lacs made by the A.O. to the undisclosed income of the assessee on account of payment of liaison money and speed money, the ld. CIT(A) has allowed relief of Rs. 40.75 lacs accepting the stand of the assessee that the amount to that extent was paid by the assessee out of undisclosed income already declared in the return. He contended that the assessee, however, had not established any co-relation between the undisclosed income declared by it in the return of income and payments made on account of liaison money and speed money and in the absence of such co-relation, the relief allowed by the ld. CIT(A) to the assessee on this issue was not justified.
15. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, filed a gist showing the details of undisclosed income declared by the assessee company in its return for the block period and the application thereof. He pointed out that liaison money and speed money paid by the assessee in relation to Panipat project was out of its undisclosed income already declared in the block period and the same being an application of the undisclosed income already declared, no separate addition for the same was called for. He contended that the said amount thus was merely an application of undisclosed income already declared by the assessee and addition thereof by the A.O. clearly amounted to double addition which was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A).
16. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the amounts in question as reflected in the relevant seized documents represented payments made by the assessee company on account of liaison money and speed money in relation to Panipat project and this position was accepted even by the assessee. As a matter of fact, in the details of its undisclosed income declared in the block return as furnished before the A.O., a total sum of Rs. 40.75 lacs was shown to be paid by the assessee on account of such liaison/speed money in relation to Panipat project out of its undisclosed income of Rs. 1.20 crores offered to tax. The stand of the assessee on this issue, therefore, was that the said amount being an application of undisclosed income already taxed, no separate addition of the same was called for as otherwise it would amount to double addition. The A.O., however, rejected this stand of the assessee company without giving any reasons and made an addition of Rs. 47,54,784/- to its undisclosed income on the basis of summary of such payments found to be given on the relevant seized documents wherein the total payments made on account of liaison/speed money in relation to Panipat project were shown at Rs. 47,54,784/-. The ld. CIT(A), on the other hand, accepted the stand of the assessee and, in our opinion rightly so, that the amount paid on account of liaison/speed money being application of the undisclosed income already taxed in the hands of the assessee, no separate addition for the same was called for. It is no doubt true that undisclosed income of the assessee was determined by the A.O. in the block assessment independent of the income of Rs. 1.20 crores offered by the assessee. However, substantial amount was added by him in the hands of the assessee as undisclosed income on account of cash receipts as reflected in the relevant documents found and seized from the residence of the directors of the assessee company. The said amount received by the assessee during the course of block period thus was available with the assessee company and the same, in our opinion, could reasonably be treated as available with the assessee to make the impugned payments on account of liaison/speed money at least to the extent of Rs. 40,75,000/-as claimed by the assessee company. In our opinion, the ld. CIT(A), therefore, was fully justified in deleting the addition made by the A.O. on this issue to the extent of Rs. 40.75 lacs holding that the said amount having been paid by the assessee out of its undisclosed income already brought to tax, no seperate addition for the same to the extent of Rs. 40.75 lacs was warranted. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss ground No. 2 of Revenue's appeal as well as ground No. 1 of assessee's appeal.
17. In ground No. 3, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 64,87,000/- made by the A.O. on account of unexplained payments allegedly made in relation to Parbhani project.
18. During the course of search, a loose paper file containing 121 pages was seized from the office of the assessee company as per Annexure -5 of Panchnama. Page No. 41 of the said Annexure -5 contained certain notings showing the total amount involved at Rs. 64.84 lacs out of which Rs. 40.75 lacs was shown to be paid whereas the remaining amount of Rs. 24.12 lacs was shown as yet to be paid. While explaining the said notings, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the same is a consolidated summary of payments made on account of liaison money and speed money in relation to Panipat project on various dates. It was submitted that these payments are also reflected in the other seized documents and page No. 41 of A-5 contained consolidated summary of such payments. It was submitted that the sum of Rs. 40.75 lacs has already been explained as actually paid by the assessee mpany out of its undisclosed income already declared in the return whereas the balance amount of Rs. 24.12 lacs was not paid at all. It was reiterated that the said payment of Rs. 40.75 lacs being application of undisclosed income already taxed, there was no separate addition called for in respect of the said amount. The A.O. did not accept this stand of the assessee company on the ground that there was a noting on the relevant seized documents which indicated that the amount of Rs. 64.87 lacs was in relation to Parbhani project . He, therefore, rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee on this issue and treated the entire amount of Rs. 64.87 lacs as undisclosed income of the assessee being unexplained payments pertaining to Parbhani project.
19. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was contended on behalf of the assessee that there was nothing contained in the relevant seized documents at page 41 of A-5 to come to the conclusion that the amounts reflected therein pertained to Parbhani project. It was submitted that the assessee company was working on eight projects at the time of search and there was nothing found during the course of search to show that any liaison or speed money was paid by the assessee in respect of any of the said projects except Panipat project. It was also submitted that most of the figures noted in page 41 of A-5 were also reflected in the other seized documents which admittedly pertained to Panipat project. It was contended that the notings made in the seized document No. 41 of A-5 thus pertained to the Panipat project of the assessee company and the same being consolidated summary of the liaison/speed money paid in relation to the said project out of the undisclosed income already declared by the assessee in the return, no further addition for the same was called for. The ld. CIT(A) found merit in these contentions raised on behalf of the assessee after having perused the notings on the relevant seized documents and deleted the addition of Rs. 64.87 lacs made by the A.O. observing that the said amount to the extent of Rs. 24.12 lacs was " to be paid " by the assessee as explicitly mentioned in the relevant seized document whereas the amount of Rs. 40.75 lacs was merely an application of undisclosed income already brought to tax in the hands of the assessee.
20. The learned D.R. submitted that the amounts of Rs. 64.85 lacs reflected in the relevant seized documents i.e. page 41 of the A-5 was entirely different from the amounts reflected in the other seized documents showing payment of liaison/speed money made by the assessee in relation to Panipat project. He submitted that the ld. CIT(A), however, accepted the stand of the assesse that page No. 41 of A-5 merely gave a consolidated summary of the amounts paid by the assessee on account of liaison/speed money in relation to Panipat project and deleted the addition made by the A.O. on this issue. He contended that there was nothing in the relevant seized documents to suggest that the amount of Rs. 64.87 lacs was pertaining to Panipat project and still the ld. CIT(A) accepted the stand of the assessee that it pertained to Panipat project while deleting the addition made by the A.O. on this issue. He contended that the said addition to the extent of Rs. 24.12 lacs at the most could have been deleted as the same was mentioned as "to be paid". He contended that the relief given by the ld. CIT(A) to the assessee on this issue thus was totally unfoundable and his impugned order on this issue may be set aside.
21. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that if there is nothing in the relevant seized documents i.e. page No. 41 of A-5 to show as to whether the entries reflected therein pertained to the Panipat project or Parbhani project, the said document has to be treated as dump document and no addition could be made on the basis thereof to the undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period. He then invited our attention to the relevant seized documents placed in his paper book and pointed out that the same contained just a consolidated summary of the liaison/speed money paid/payable in relation to the Panipat project. He contended that this position was brought to the notice of the A.O. but he still added the amount reflected in the said seized document to the undisclosed income of the assessee again which resulted in consideration of the same amount twice. He contended that the ld. CIT(A), on the other hand, appreciated this position correctly on perusal of the relevant seized documents and rightly deleted the addition made by the A.O. on this issue holding that the amount of Rs. 40.75 lacs being application of undisclosed income already declared by the assessee could not be added again and the balance of Rs. 24.12 lacs being not paid by the assessee as clearly indicated in the relevant seized documents, the same could not be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. He, therefore, strongly supported the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue and urge that the same may be upheld.
22. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. As regards the contents of the relevant seized documents i.e. page No. 41 of A-5, the explanation offered on behalf of the assessee right from the beginning was that the same represented consolidated summary of liaison and speed money paid in relation to Panipat project. The A.O., however, did not accept the said explanation without giving any cogent reason to justify his action. He also treated the entries appearing in the said seized documents as related to Parbhani project without there being anything contained therein to indicate that the transactions recorded were related to Parbhani project. As rightly submitted on behalf of the assessee company, there was nothing found during the course of search to show that any liaison money or speed money was paid by the assessee company in relation to any projects other than Panipat project. The A.O. still added the entire amount of Rs. 64.87 lacs reflected in the relevant seized documents to the undisclosed income of the assessee overlooking the fact that similar amounts paid on account of liaison and speed money as reflected in the other seized documents were already treated by him as undisclosed income of the assessee. He also overlooked the fact that out of this amount of Rs. 64.87 lacs, a sum of Rs. 24.12 lacs was to be paid by the assessee as clearly indicated in the relevant seized documents itself and the same, therefore, could not be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee in the absence of any evidence to show that the same was actually paid by the assessee. As regards the remaining amount of Rs. 40.75 lacs which was admittedly paid by the assessee on account of liaison/speed money, the same was claimed to be paid by the assessee company out of its undisclosed income already offered to tax and no separate addition for the same, therefore, was warranted as it was merely an application of undisclosed income already brought to tax in the hands of the assessee company. As such, considering all the facts of the case as well as the material available on record including the relevant seized documents, we are of the view that the addition of Rs. 64.87 lacs made by the A.O. to the undisclosed income of the assessee on this issue was not sustainable and the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the same. The impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue is therefore upheld dismissing ground no. 3 of the Revenue's appeal.
23. In ground No. 4, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 84,65,170/- made by the A.O. on account of purchase of bitumen in cash.
24. The contents of the seized documents identified as page No. 33 of Ann. 1 indicated bitumen of Rs. 27,12,205/- purchased by the assessee company in cash. Page No. 27 and 29 of Anne.1 found and seized during the course of search also revealed bitumen of 22.450 MT purchased by the assessee in cash. The value of such bitumen as worked out by the A.O. by applying a rate of Rs. 5400/- PMT came to Rs. 1,21,230/- and after adding the same to the purchases reflected on page No. 33 of A-1, the total of bitumen purchased in cash as reflected in these three documents was worked out by the A.O. at Rs. 28,33,435/-. Vide its letter dated 27.12.2002, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that page No. 33 of A-1 contained the details of bitumen purchased by him from the concerned parties namely M/s Sai Lubricants, M/s Sonika Oil Company, M/s Petrochem Traders and M/s K.K. Trading Co. The copies of bills of the said parties were filed by the assessee company and it was submitted that the said bills have been settled by A/c payee cheques. It was explained that the word "bitumen in cash" was used only to differentiate the bitumen/LDO purchased from the open market from the bitumen/LDO purchased against CRC and cheque. It was submitted that the word CRC was used for bitumen procured against Government quota and the word cheque was used to denote procurement of bitumen directly from refineries against cheque/DD. It was contended that the word cash was used to indicate bitumen purchased from open market by making payments by A/c payee cheques and the said purchases were duly reflected in the regular books of account of assessee company. This explanation of the assessee was not found acceptable by the A.O. He noted that the copies of bills filed by the assessee were not for purchases of bitumen. According to him, the expressions "CRC" and "cheque" were used to denote purchases of bitumen on credit and against cheques respectively whereas the expression "cash" was used for the purchases of bitumen made in cash. He therefore treated the purchases of bitumen made by the assessee company in cash outside the books of account amounting to Rs. 28,33,435/- as its undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period. Similarly, the value of purchase of bitumen of 250.44 MT and 137.410 MT for Yavatmal and Army projects as reflected in the seized documents identified as page No. 79 of A-4 worked out at Rs. 20,94,390/- in cash was treated by the A.O. as undisclosed income of the assessee rejecting the explanation of the assessee that the expression "cash" used in the said document meant purchase of bitumen from open market against cheque payments. For the similar reasons, even the purchase of bitumen of 645.750 MTs made in cash for Waluj project from M/s Sai Lubricants as reflected in the seized document identified as Page No. 75 of A-7 worth Rs. 35,37,345/- were added by the A.O. to the undisclosed income of the assessee. The total addition on account of purchase of bitumen in cash thus was made by the A.O. at Rs. 84,65,170/-.
25. The aforesaid addition made by the AO on account of purchase of bitumen in cash outside the books of account was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A) and the submissions made before the A.O. on this issue were reiterated on its behalf before the ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that assessee company is engaged in the business of construction of roads, highways, flyovers etc. for which bitumen is one of the basic raw materials. It was submitted that bitumen is a petroleum product which is normally produced by refineries. It was submitted that when the same is not readily available with refineries, the assessee company has to procure it from the open market. It was submitted that in view of the restrictions on sale of bitumen, the suppliers of bitumen in open market issue bills for LDO which is also a petroleum product. It was contended that the bills produced by the assesee company for purchase of bitumen, therefore, were having the description of LDO. It was contended that the said bills, however, were actually for the purchase of bitumen and the assessee having recorded the same in its books of account and having made payments against the same by A/c payee cheques, no addition to undisclosed income was called for on account of such purchases. It was contended that the A.O., however, relied mainly on the expression " bitumen in cash" used in the relevant documents and assumed the purchases of bitumen stated to be made in cash as purchases outside the books of account. It was also contended that on page No. 33 found during the course of search, there were certain double entries of the same amounts but the A.O. considered both these amounts as undisclosed income of the assessee which resulted in double addition. It was submitted that page 27 & 29 of A-1 clearly indicated names of the transporters namely Kajol and Eveready who had transported the bitumen purchased by the assessee from BPCL. It was submitted that payment to them on account of transportation charges was made by the assessee company in cash which was presumed by the A.O. to be purchase of bitumen by the assessee company in cash. It was contended that when the bitumen was meant to be used by the assessee company as raw material in its business and deduction for purchase thereof was allowable, there was no reason for it to make the purchases of bitumen in cash outside the books of account as alleged by the A.O. Reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee company on the various judicial pronouncements defining the scope and ambit of block assessment u/s. 158 BC in order to contend that the addition made by the A.O. on account of purchase of bitumen in cash was outside the scope of block assessment.
26. The ld. CIT(A) found merit in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee by the assessee on this issue. According to him, the explanation offered by the assessee as regards the expressions "CRC", "cheque" and "cash" as used in the context of purchase of bitumen in the relevant seized documents was satisfactory and as per the said explanation, the bitumen stated to be purchased in cash was actually purchased from open market by making payments by A/c payee cheques. He also accepted the explanation of the assessee that bills issued by the concerned suppliers for bitumen contained the description as LDO due to certain restrictions. He held that the said bills which were actually for purchase of bitumen having been duly entered into by the assessee company in its books of account and payments for the same having been made by A/c payee cheques, the addition made by the A.O. on account of purchase of bitumen was unsustainable. Accordingly, the said addition was deleted by the ld. CIT(A).
27. The ld. D.R. at the outset invited our attention to the relevant seized documents placed in the assessee's paper book and pointed out that the word " cash" was clearly written at the relevant places. He contended that having regard to the contents of the relevant seized documents, the only inference which could be drawn was that the assessee has purchased the bitumen as mentioned in the said documents in cash. He submitted that if the assessee wanted to dispute this position clearly apparent from the relevant seized documents, the onus was on him to establish its case on evidence. He contended that the assessee, however, has failed to discharge the said onus in as much as even the evidence filed by him in the form of bills for purchases of bitumen contained the description as LDO. He submitted that there was nothing brought on record by the assessee to show that there was any restriction in issuing bills for bitumen and that the bills issued for LDO were actually for purchase of bitumen. He submitted that if at all the bills for purchase of bitumen contained the description as LDO, how the assessee has recorded the same in its stock register and how the quantitative tally for bitumen has been maintained. He contended that the explanation offered by the assessee in respect of this variation in description therefore was not satisfactory and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in accepting the same.
28. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that bitumen is regularly required by the assessee company for the purpose of its business and when the same is not available with the refineries, assessee procures it from the open market . He submitted that such purchases of bitumen made from the local market against payment by cheques were referred to as "bitumen in cash" in the entries appearing on the relevant seized documents as per the normal practice followed by the assessee. He contended that the said explanation used by the assessee, however, was misconstrued by the A.O. to hold that purchases of bitumen were made by the assessee in cash outside the books of account. He submitted that bills for the said purchases duly accounted for in its books of account were produced by the assessee before the A.O. to show that it was not a case of purchases made outside the books of account. He submitted that the A.O., however, completely brushed aside the said bills merely because the description given in the said bills was LDO and not bitumen. He submitted that due to certain restrictions on supply of bitumen, bills for purchase of bitumen were issued by the concerned suppliers giving the description as LDO, but this explanation offered by the assessee was not appreciated by the A.O. He contended that the ld. CIT(A) however appreciated and accepted this explanation and rightly deleted the addition made by the A.O. on this issue after having satisfied that the relevant purchases of bitumen were duly recorded by the assessee company in its books of account and even the said bills were settled by A/c payee cheques.
29. The learned counsel for the assessee also invited our attention to the seized documents placed at page No. 187 & 188 of his paper book and submitted that the purchases of bitumen indicated therein were one and the same, page 187 containing purchases in value terms whereas page No. 188 containing the same purchases in monetary terms. He contended that the A.O., however, considered both the purchases for making the impugned addition which has resulted in double addition of the same amount. He also pointed out from the relevant seized document identified as page No. 33 placed at page No. 187 of his paper book that certain purchases were written therein twice and the A.O. wrongly considered both such purchases which again resulted in double addition. Without prejudice to his main arguments that addition made on this issue by the A.O. was not sustainable as rightly held by the ld. CIT(A) and as an alternative, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that even if it is to be held that the impugned purchases of bitumen were made by the assessee in cash outside the books of account, the same could be treated as purchased by the assessee out of its undisclosed income already offered to tax and the same being application of such undisclosed income, no separate addition for the same is warranted since it was just an application of undisclosed income already brought to tax in the hands of the assessee company.
30. In the rejoinder, the ld. D.R. submitted that in order to claim the benefit of telescoping, it is for the assessee to establish the co-relation between the funds generated from undisclosed income offered to tax and application thereof for the purpose of making purchases of bitumen outside the books of account in cash. He has contended that no such co-relation, however, has been established by the assessee.
31. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record including the copies of the relevant seized documents. It is observed that the relevant purchases of bitumen were clearly stated to be made in cash in the relevant seized documents and although the assessee tried to explain that such description given in the seized documents was to indicate the purchases of bitumen made from the open market by making payments by cheques, there was no cogent evidence filed by the assessee to support and substantiate the same. The only evidence filed by the assessee in this regard was the bills issued by the concerned parties purportedly for purchase of bitumen. The said bills, however, were issued for supply of LDO as clearly indicated in the description of products supplied as given in the said bills. The assessee, however, tried to justify the same by stating that due to certain restrictions on supply of bitumen, the bills were issued by the concerned suppliers for LDO. Here again, nothing was brought on record by the assessee to support and substance the said explanation. It appears that the ld. CIT(A) however accepted the explanation of the assessee without there being any evidence whatsoever to support and substantiate the same. As rightly contended by the ld. D.R. before us the relevant purchases of bitumen were made by the assessee in cash as was clearly apparent from the entries found recorded in the relevant seized documents and if at all the assessee wanted to claim that this apparent position is not real, the onus was on the to establish its case on evidence. In our opinion, the assessee however has failed to discharge this onus and this being so, we hold that the addition made by the A.O. on account of purchases of bitumen made by the assessee in cash outside the books of account was rightly made in the facts of the case and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the same.
32. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed out from the relevant seized documents that some of the purchases are recorded therein twice. He has contended that even the A.O. also has considered the same twice which has resulted in double addition of the same amounts. He has also pointed out from the copies of relevant seized documents placed at page No. 187 & 188 of his paper book that the purchases found recorded in monetary terms were again reflected on other page in quantitative terms. He has contended that here again the A.O. has taken both these purchases for determining undisclosed income of the assessee which has resulted in double addition. In our opinion, this matter requires verification from the relevant record and the A.O. having no occasion to do such verification, we restore this matter to the A.O. for the limited purpose of allowing appropriate relief, if any, to the assessee after necessary verification. The learned counsel for the assessee has also raised an alternative contention before us that undisclosed income offered by the assessee in the block return is sufficient to cover the purchases of bitumen already made by the assessee in cash outside the books and no addition, therefore, is required to be made separately on account of such purchases. However, as rightly contended by the ld. D.R. in this regard, the assessee has to establish the co-relation between the undisclosed income offered by it and the purchases of bitumen made in cash is as much as the availability of funds from the undisclosed income declared by the assessee at the relevant time to make such purchases is to be proved. It is, therefore, relevant to ascertain the period of availability of funds from undisclosed income declared by the assessee. Moreover, the assessee has already claimed to have utilized the said undisclosed income for giving loans and advances as well as for making payment of liaison and speed money and the said claim having been accepted by us, the undisclosed income to that extent cannot again be said to be available with the assessee for purchase of bitumen in cash. The assessee therefore is required to explain and establish its case on this alternative stand by furnishing the required working to show the availability of cash out undisclosed income offered by it at the relevant time to make the purchases of bitumen in question. We, therefore, direct the assessee to prepare and furnish such working before the A.O. who shall verify the same from the relevant record and allow appropriate relief, if any, to the assessee on such verification. Ground no. 4 of the revenue's appeal is thus treated as allowed subject to our direction in respect of assessee's alternative plea.
33. Ground No. 5 of the Revenue's appeal and ground No. 3 of the assessee's appeal involve a common issue relating to the addition of Rs. 6,76,000/- made by the A.O. on account of alleged kickback payments which stands sustained by the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 2,47,555/-
34. During the course of search, a loose paper identified as page No. 1 was found and seized from the residence of Shri J.K. Valecha, Director of the assessee company. In his statement recorded during the course of search, Shri J.K. Valecha admitted that the entry appearing on the said document was for payment of Rs. 6,76,000/- on account of kickback pertaining to the tunnel project at Satara being executed by the assessee company. Since the said payment made on account of kickback was not an allowable business expenditure in view of Explanation to Section 37, the A.O. treated the same as undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted on behalf of the assessee company that the admission made by its Director in the statement recorded during the course of search was under pressure and without verifying the relevant records. It was contended that the assessee therefore had a right to retract the said statement and in view of the fact that the said statement was not supported by any corroborative evidence, no addition merely on the basis of admission in the statement could be made in the block assessment. Without prejudice to this main argument and as an alternative, it was also contended on behalf of the assessee company that miscellaneous income of Rs. 4,28,445/- having been separately declared by the assessee in the block return, the payment of kickback should be treated as explained to that extent.
35. The ld. CIT(A) did not find merit in the main contention raised on behalf of the assessee company challenging the addition made on this issue keeping in view the contents of the relevant seized document as well as the admission on the part of Shri J.K. Valecha, Director of the assessee company which was held to be spontaneous by the ld. CIT(A). He, however, found merit in the alternative contention raised on behalf of the assessee company and allowed a set off of miscellaneous income of Rs. 4,28,445/- declared by the assessee company separately as its undisclosed income in the block return against this addition . Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 6,76,000/- made by the A.O. on this issue was sustained by the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 2,47,585/- ..
36. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the entry found recorded in the relevant document seized from the residence of Shri J.K. Valecha, Director of the assessee company was clearly admitted by him in his statement recorded during the course of search as representing kickback payment made in relation to Satara project. Although an attempt was made on behalf of the assessee company to submit before the ld. CIT(A) that the said admission was made under pressure and in the confused state of mind, there is nothing brought on recorded to show that any such pressure was actually there at the time of search to compel its Director to make the admission. The assessee company has also not been able to show that the statement of the Shri J.K. Valecha on this point was incorrect and entry in the relevant seized document represented something else and not the kickback payment. The assessee thus has not been able to retract successfully the admission made by its Director in the statement recorded and this being so, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the action of the A.O. on this issue relying on the said admission. We also find that the ld. CIT(A) was quite fair and reasonable in accepting the alternative claim of the assessee for adjustment of miscellaneous income of Rs. 4,28,445/- separately declared by the assessee in its block return against this amount and in sustaining the addition only to the extent of Rs. 2,47,555/-. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss ground No. 5 of the Revenue's appeal as well as ground No. 3 of the assessee's appeal.
37. In ground No. 2 of its appeal, the assessee company has challenged the addition of Rs. 20,03,231/- made by the A.O. and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of alleged bogus purchases claimed to be made from M/s Malavika Steels Ltd.
38. During the course of search, copies of bills and other relevant documents identified as loose paper No. 27 to 46 of Anne. S-7 showing purchases of Rs. 20,03.231/- from M/s Malavika Steels Ltd. were found and seized. A consequential search/survey was also conducted in the case of Malavika Steels Ltd., a company belonging to Usha group. In the said operation, a statement of one Mr. Jarnail Singh, Dy. General Manager of M/s Usha India Ltd. was recorded. In the said statement, he accepted of having made sales of approx. Rs. 20 Lacs to the assessee company by M/s Malavika Steel Ltd. He also accepted that payments received from the assessee company against said sales were deposited in the bank account of M/s Malavika Steel Ltd. and same were utilized either for making payments to creditors or for transferring the funds to head Office. He, however, stated that there was no movement of goods either from Usha group company or from the party shown as the supplier. As stated by the A.O. in the assessment order, M/s Malavika Steels Ltd. could not be traced at the address given in the relevant bills i.e. 7 Ulhas Street, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 038. According to A.O., the assessee company also could not explain satisfactorily any reason for making the payments to M/s Malavika Steels Ltd. by demand drafts when both the parties were in Mumbai. He, therefore, treated the purchases claimed to be made by the assessee company as bogus and the amount thereof was added by him to the undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period.
39. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted on behalf of the assessee company while disputing the addition made by the A.O. on account of bogus purchases that M/s Malavika Steels Ltd. had discontinued its business operation from Mumbai office and despite the fact that addresses of Head Office and factory office of the said company at New Delhi and Jagdishpur were furnished by it vide letter dated 9.12.2002, no enquiry whatsoever was made by the A.O. at the said addresses. It was also submitted that when a search/survey operation was carried out in the case of M/s Malavika Steels Ltd. by the Department, there was no reason for the A.O. to doubt the existence of the said party. As regards the payments made to Malavika Steels Ltd. by DD, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee company before the ld. CIT(A) that it was done as per the terms of payment agreed with the said supplier and there was no reason for the A.O. to doubt the genuineness of the purchases merely because payments were made by Demand Drafts. As regards the statement of Shri Jarnail Singh, DGM of the supplier company, it was contended on behalf of the assessee company by referring to the relevant questions and answers that he had never denied the fact of sale of goods made to the assessee company. It was submitted that G.P. sheets purchased by the assessee company from M/s Malavika Steels Ltd. were used in its tunnel project at Satara and such use was duly supported by the certificates issued by the concerned authorities. It was also submitted that the concerned supplier M/s Malavika Steels Ltd. was duly assessed to tax and it was also a registered dealer under the State and Central Sales Tax Act. It was contended that there was thus sufficient evidence brought on record by the assessee company to establish the genuineness of the purchases made from M/s Malavika Steels Ltd. and the A.O. was not justified in treating the said purchases to be bogus merely on the basis of suspicion and surmises. The submissions made on behalf of the assessee company on this issue were not found satisfactory by the ld. CIT(A) and relying mainly on the statement of Shri Jarnail Singh, he confirmed the addition of Rs. 20,03,231/- made by the A.O. on this issue holding that the purchases claimed to be made by the assessee company from M/s Malavika Steels ltd. were bogus.
40. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that no incriminating material was found during the course of search in relation to purchases made by the assessee company from M/s Malavika Steels Ltd. He submitted that what was found during the course of search is only the set of regular purchase documents. He invited our attention to the copies of the said documents placed at pg. 166 to 185 of its paper book and submitted that all these were regular purchase documents. He submitted that all the purchases reflected in the said documents were duly recorded by the assessee company in its books of account and even the payments made against the said purchases by demand drafts were duly reflected in the books of account. He contended that these purchases duly recorded by the assessee company in its books of account however have been held to be bogus by the authorities below mainly on the basis of statement of DGM of the supplier company without there being any evidence found during the course of search to doubt the genuineness of the purchases. He contended that the said statement relied upon by the authorities below however was never confronted to the assessee company and no opportunity was also afforded to cross examine the said deponent. He contended that the addition made by the A.O. on account of purchases already disclosed by the assessee in the books of account treating the same as bogus merely relying on the statement of third party without there being any other evidence found to corroborate the same was beyond the scope of the block assessment and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the same.
41. The ld. D.R., on the other hand submitted that if any expenses claimed by the assessee in it regular books of account are found to be false or bogus as a result of search operation, the same can be treated as its undisclosed income for a block period as per the definition of "undisclosed income" given in section 158B(b). He contended that there is nothing on record to show that copy of the statement of Mr. Jarnail Singh or even his cross examination was sought by the assessee either before the A.O. or before the ld. CIT(A). He contended that it is therefore too late in a day for the ld. Counsel for the assessee to raise this issue at this stage before the Tribunal. The ld. D.R, therefore strongly relied on the orders of the authorities on this issue and urged that the impugned addition may be confirmed.
42. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the genuineness of purchases claimed to be made by the assessee company from M/s Malvika Steels Ltd. has been doubted/disputed by raising three objections. As regards the first objection raised by the A.O. that the said party was not traceable at the Mumbai address given in the relevant bills, it is observed that it was intimated by the assessee to the A.O. in writing that the said company had closed its operation in Mumbai and the address of its Head Office at New Delhi as well as that of factory at Jagdishpur were also informed to the A.O. As submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and remained uncontroverted by the ld. D.R., no enquiry, however, was attempted to made by the A.O. at the said address. As regards the objection raised by the A.O. on the basis of payments made by the assessee company to M/s Malvika Steels Ltd. by demand drafts when both the parties were in Mumbai, it was explained on behalf of the assessee company before the ld. CIT(A) that it was done as per the payment terms agreed with the concerned supplier. In any case, we agree with the contention raised by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in this regard that no adverse inference in the matter of genuineness of purchases can be drawn merely on the basis of payments having been made by demand drafts instead of cheques.
43. As regards the third and main objection of the A.O. relying on the statement of Shri Jarnail Singh, DGM of the supplier company, it is observed from the relevant portion of the said statement that the said deponent had accepted the sales made to the assessee by M/s Malavika Steels Ltd. He had also accepted of having deposited the drafts received from the assessee company in the bank account of M/s Malavika Steels Ltd. and having utilized the said amount for making payment to the creditors or transferring the funds to the Head Office. He, however, stated that there was no movement of goods from his group company to the assessee company. This statement appears to have been made by him without there being any specific question asked to him regarding delivery of goods. No further question was also asked to him despite this unprovoked statement made by him. It is pertinent to note here that the relevant documents found during the course of search were comprising of lorry receipts for transportation of goods from M/s Malavika Steels Ltd. to the assessee company. This evidence was sufficient to prove the movement of goods supplied by M/s Malvaika Steels Ltd. to the assessee company, but still no further question was asked to Mr. Jarnail Singh when he made a statement which was contrary to the evidence found during the course of search. As rightly contended by the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us, the documents found during the course of search in relation to these purchases were regular purchase documents and there was no incriminating material found doubting or disputing the genuineness of the purchases evidenced by the said document. The said purchases thus were held to be bogus by the authorities below mainly on the basis of statement of Shri Jarnail Singh which was vague and contrary to the evidence on record. As submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, no opportunity was also afforded by the A.O. to the assessee to cross examine the said deponent before relying on his deposition to draw an adverse inference against it. It is worthwhile to mention here that even the use of material claimed to be purchased by the assessee company from Malavika Steels Co. was specifically explained by the assessee for its tunnel project at Satara and there was nothing brought on record by the A.O. to dispute the same. As such considering all facts of the case, we are of the view that the addition made by the A.O. on account of alleged bogus purchases was not sustainable and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the same. In that view of the matter, we delete the said addition and allow ground No. 2 of the assessee's appeal.
44. Ground No. 4 raised in the appeal of the assessee is general which seeks no specific decision from us.
45. As regards ground No. 5, it is observed that the issue raised therein relating to levy of surcharge on the tax computed u/s. 113 is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajiv Bhatara wherein it was held that surcharge was leviable even in the cases where search was conducted prior to 01.06.2002. Respectfully following the said decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we dismiss ground No. 5 of the assessee's appeal.
46. The issue raised in ground No. 6 relating to levy of interest u/s. 158 BFA(1) is consequential. The A.O. accordingly is directed to give consequential relief to the assessee on this issue.
47. Ground No. 7 raised by the assessee in this appeal challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 158 BFA(2) is not pressed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. The same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
48. In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as that of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on 6th April, 2010.
Sd/- sd/-
(R.V. EASWAR) (P.M. JAGTAP)
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai, dated 6th April, 2010.
RK
Copy to...
The appellant
The Respondent
The CIT(A) - Central II, Mumbai
The CIT, Central IV, Mumbai
The DR Bench, A
Master File
// Tue copy//
BY ORDER
DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR
ITAT, MUMBAI
Date
Initials
1. Draft dictated
30.3.10, 31.3.10
Sr.P.S./P.S.
2. Draft placed before
author
01.04.10, 5.4.10
Sr.P.S./P.S.
3. Draft proposed &
placed before the
second member.
-
J.M./A.M.
4.Draft discussed/
approved by second
Member.
J.M./A.M.
5. Approved draft
comes to the
Sr.P.S./P.S.
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 of which file
goes to the Head
clerk.
9. Date of dispatch
of order.
31