MR. ASHOK D. SHRIMALI, NAVI MUMBAI v. THE ITO 22(3)-1, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 3059/MUM/2008 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 305919914 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAFPS8585B
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 3059/MUM/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant MR. ASHOK D. SHRIMALI, NAVI MUMBAI
Respondent THE ITO 22(3)-1, NAVI MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 07-01-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 15-12-2009
Next Hearing Date 15-12-2009
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 06-05-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'H' BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 5479/MUM/2005 & 3059/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03) MR. ASHOK D. SHRIMALI INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(3)-1 PROP. M/S. DHANANJAY & CO. TOWER NO. 6 3RD FLOOR PLOT NO. 11A SHOP NO. 2 VS. VASHI RLY. STATION COMPLEX SAIRAM SERVICE CENTRE SEC. 23 VASHI NAVI MUMBAI 400703 PAN - AAFPS 8585 B PAN - AAFPS 8585 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI SHAILESH N. DOSHI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI KESHAV SAXENA O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH A.M. THESE APPEALS BY THE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST TH E ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)- XXII MUMBAI DATED 22.06.2005 & 18.02.2008 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2002-03. ITA NO. 5479/MUM/2005 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS ON THE ISSUE O F ADDITION OF RS.2 47 432/- AND RS.8 10 512/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON VERIFICATION FROM TWO TRADE CREDITORS. ALL THE GROUNDS PERTAIN TO THE ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CREDIT BALANCE OF TWO PARTIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON ENQUIRY FROM M/S. ICI INDIA LTD. AND M/S. BERGER PAINTS LTD . THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUND ER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARITY:- NOTICE U/S. 133(6) ISSUED TO THE CREDITORS. IN THE FOLLOWING CASES DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND M/S. ICI INDIA LTD. AND M/S. BERGER PAINTS LTD. IN THE CASE OF M/S. ICI INDIA LTD. THE ASSESSEE HA S SHOWN PURCHASES AT RS.5 89 833/- AND CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.3 08 329/-. THE ICI INDIA LTD. VIDE REPLY TO NOTICE STATED THAT THERE IS A SALE OF RS.5 89 880/- AND THE BALANCE SHOWN IS RS.60 897/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOW N EXCESS LIABILITY OF RS.2 47 432/-. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSE E VIDE ORDER-SHEET DATED 29.11.2004 22.12.2004 AND 30.12.2004 WAS ASK ED TO RECONCILE ITA NO. 5479& 3059/MUM/2005/08 2 THE STATEMENT. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE A TTENDED ON 13.01.2005 HE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO RECONCILE TH E STATEMENT. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IS SEPARATELY INITIATED AND EXCESS LIABIL ITY OF RS.2 47 432/- IS ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF M/S. BERGER PAINTS LTD. THE ASSESSE E HAS SHOWN PURCHASE AT RS.20 19 463/- AND CREDIT BALANCE AT RS .8 76 868/-. THE BERGER PAINTS LTD. VIDE REPLY TO NOTICE STATED THAT THERE IS A SALE OF RS.34 23 183/- AND CLOSING BALANCE AT RS.66 356/-. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER-SHEETS DATED 5.11.2004 29.11.2004 22.12.2004 & 30.12.2004 HAS BEEN ASKED TO RECONCILE THE STATEMENT. THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY M/S. BERGER PAIN TS LTD. WAS GIVEN TO REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN ENTRIES OF CHEQU E DEPOSITED AND CHEQUE RETURNED BACK AMOUNTING TO RS.11 81 260/- DEBIT NOT E AND CREDIT NOTE AMOUNTING TO RS.1 07 456/- TOTAL OF BOTH ARE AT RS. 12 88 706/- REDUCING THIS FIGURE FROM TOTAL PURCHASE EVEN THOUGH THERE I S A EXCESS PURCHASE OF (RS.34 23 183 20 19 463/- - 12 88 706) RS.1 15 01 4/- WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD T HESE ITEM OUT AND OUT AND HAS NOT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THER EFORE RS.1 15 014/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE C REDIT BALANCE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS AT RS.8 76 686/- WHEREAS M/S. BE RGER PAINTS LTD SHOWN CLOSING BALANCE AT RS.66 356/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN EXCESS LIABILITY AT RS.8 10 512/-. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF T HE ASSESSEE ATTENDED ON 13.1.2005 REGARDING CREDIT BALANCE HE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO RECONCILE THE STATEMENT. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME RS.1 15 014/- IS ADDED IN HIS GROSS RECEIPT AND ACCORDINGLY NET PROFIT WORKED OUT AT RS.2 40 059/- AND THE EXCESS L IABILITY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.8 10 512/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) IS SEPARATELY INITIATED. 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF FACTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE TWO ADDITIONS: - 4. IN THE CASE OF M/S. ICI INDIA LTD. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOUND DISCREPANCY IN CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.247432/- WHICH IS AS PER BALANCE OF APPELLANT BOOKS IS RS.308329/- WHILE AS PER ICI INDIA LTD. NOTICE REPLY LETTER BALANCE IS RS.60897/- AND THUS THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE HAS ADDED DIFFERENCE OF RS.247432/- TO THE I NCOME OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT GOING REALLY THE REASONS FOR DIFFERENCES AN D RECONCILING THE SAME AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCI LE THE DIFFERENCE BECAUSE OF THE NON AVAILABILITY OF FULL DETAILS AND EXPLANATION OF ENTRIES OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ICI INDIA LTD. 5. IN CASE OF M/S BERGER PAINTS LTD THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER HAS FOUND DISCREPANCY IN CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.810512/- WHICH IS AS PER BALANCE OF APPELLANT BOOKS I RS.876868/- WHILE AS P ER BERGER PAINTS LTD NOTICE REPLY LETTER BALANCE IS RS.66356/- AND THUS THE LEARNED ASSESSING ITA NO. 5479& 3059/MUM/2005/08 3 OFFICER HAS ADDED DIFFERENCE OF RS.810512/- TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT GOING REALLY THE REASONS FRO DIFF ERENCES AND RECONCILING THE SAME AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE BECAUSE OF NON AVAILABILITY OF FULL DETA ILS AND EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN ENTRIES OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF BERGER PAIN T LTD. 4. THE CIT(A) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ARGUMENTS AND W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING IT AS UNDER: - 3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ARGUMENTS AND WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS CONTENTS OF THE IMPUGNED ASSES SMENT ORDER AND THE CASE RECORDS. I FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE T HAT APPELLANT HAD SHOWN PURCHASES FROM M/S. ICI INDIA LTD. TO THE TUNE OF R S.5 89 833/- AND THE SAME ARE REFLECTED AS SALES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S MAINTAINED BY M/S. ICI INDIA LTD. IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT. THERE IS NO FURTHER DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS M/S. ICI INDIA LTD. TO BE THE TRADE CREDITOR FOR RS.3 08 329/- ONL Y AS ON 31.03.2002 WHEREAS M/S. ICI INDIA LTD. HAS SHOWN THE APPELLANT AS DEBTOR FOR RS.60 897/- ONLY ON THE SAME DATE. SIMILARLY THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT M/S. BERGER PAINTS LTD. HAS SHOWN SALES OF RS.34 23 183/- TO THE APPELLANT AND APPELLANT HAD SHOWN PURCHASE FROM THE SAID PARTY TO THE TUNE OF RS.20 19 463/- ONLY WHICH IS RECONCILED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE MORE BY RS.12 88 706/-/ THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT EVEN AFTER THIS RECONCILIATION THE PURCHASES SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT WAS LESS BY RS.1 15 014/- WHEN RECONCILED WITH THE SAL ES OF THE SAID PARTY M/S. BERGER PAINTS LTD. TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR. THERE IS NO FURTHER DISPUTE THAT M/S. BERGER PAINTS LTD. HAS SH OWN THE APPELLANT DEBTOR FOR RS.66 356/- ONLY WHEREAS THE APPELLANT H AS SHOWN THE PARTY M/S. BERGER PAINTS LTD. TO BE HIS TRADE CREDITOR FO R RS.8 76 868/-. ALL THESE FACTS ARE MENTIONED IN THE BODY OF THE IMPUGN ED ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT HAS BEEN RE-PRODUCED ABOVE AND THE APPEL LANT HAS NOT DISPUTED ANY OF THESE FIGURES. 3.1 .. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO PRUDENT BUSINESSM AN WILL REDUCE ITS RECEIVABLES WITHOUT BEING OBLIGED FOR THE SAME BY T HE DEBTOR. THE OBLIGATION IS ON THE BENEFICIARY I.E. THE APPELLANT HIMSELF TO SHOW-CAUSE AS HOW HIS LIABILITY IS REDUCED WITHOUT PAYING THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH HE HIMSELF ACKNOWLEDGED THE LIABILITY. IN SUCH FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS QUITE LAWFUL TO DEDUCE THAT EITHER THE AMOUNT IN D IFFERENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE PARTIES FROM THE APPELLANT OUTSIDE ITS BOOKS OR THE PARTIES HAD PASSED SOME EXTRA ORDINARY BENEFIT TO THE APPEL LANT BY REDUCING THE RECEIVABLES RESULTING THEREBY THE REDUCTION IN LIAB ILITY OF THE APPELLANT CONSEQUENTLY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE INCOME IS HI GHER THAN SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. NO SUCH REDUCTION IN LIABILITY HAD B EEN ADMITTED OR RECOGNISED BY THE APPELLANT. OBVIOUSLY THE AMOUNT O F DIFFERENCE THUS HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE PARTIES THAT REPRESENTS AP PELLANTS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE YEAR AS I AM OF THE FIRM OPINION THA T NO PRUDENT PERSON WOULD LIKE TO REDUCE HIS RECEIVABLES WITHOUT RECEIV ING THE MONEY FROM THE DEBTOR IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THAT MONEY REPRESENTS THE ITA NO. 5479& 3059/MUM/2005/08 4 DEBTORS DISCLOSED INCOME OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IN THIS WAY I FIND THAT THE ACTION OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UN-RECONCILED AND UNCONFIRMED CREDIT BAL ANCES IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IN THE NAME OF M/S. ICI INDIA LTD. AN D M/S. BERGER PAINTS LTD AS THE APPELLANT WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPLA IN AND RECONCILE THE SAME DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS EVEN. .. 5. THE CIT(A) ALSO DISCUSSED THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS PVT. LTD. 236 ITR 518 RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AND GAVE CLEAR FINDINGS THAT THE SA ID CASE LAW WILL NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE CREDITS OF RS.2 47 432/- IN RESPECT OF ICI INDIA LTD. AND RS.8 10 512/- IN RESPECT OF M/S. BURGER PAINTS LTD. WHILE DELETING THE UNACCOUN TED PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.1 15 014/- WHICH HE CONSIDERED AS REDUN DANT IN VIEW OF THE ADDITION OF THE DISCREPANCY IN THE CREDIT BALANCE. 6. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL PUT THE BURDEN ON THE A.O. OF RECONCILIATION. HOWEVER HE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO RECONCILE THE AMOUNT BUT HIS MAIN ARGUM ENT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SMALL TRADER AND DO NOT HAVE ACCESS T O THE BIG COMPANIES RECORDS AND ACCORDINGLY HE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE AMOUNT. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT NON-RECONCILED AMOUNTS CANNOT BE BR OUGHT TO TAX AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF NUWARE INDIA LTD. VS. DCIT 118 ITD 70 (DEL). 7. THE LEARNED D.R. HOWEVER REITERATED THE FACTS AS STATED IN THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AND CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT INSPITE O F GIVING ENOUGH OPPORTUNITIES THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE ENTRIES AT ALL. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. BEFORE US ALSO THE AS SESSEE NEITHER FILED ANY ACCOUNT COPIES OR TRANSACTION STATEMENT VIS--V IS THE ICI INDIA LTD OR BERGER PAINTS LTD. TO A LARGE EXTENT THE ASSESSEE H AS RECONCILED THE AMOUNTS BEFORE THE A.O. WITH REFERENCE TO M/S. BERGER PAINT S LTD. THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO RECO NCILE THE AMOUNTS BEFORE THE A.O. AS HE HAS OBTAINED INFORMATION FROM THE TW O PARTIES AND PASSED ON THE ACCOUNT COPIES TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FOR THE A SSESSEE TO RECONCILE EACH OF THE ENTRIES VIS--VIS HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASS ESSEE NEITHER GAVE ANY ITA NO. 5479& 3059/MUM/2005/08 5 RECONCILIATION CONSIDERING WHETHER THERE WAS ANY DI FFERENCE IN OPENING FIGURES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE TRANSACTIONS OF REPAYMENTS OF AMOUNTS OR ANY EVEN A NY DISCOUNTS ALLOWED BY THE SAID COMPANIES TO THE ASSESSEE. WITHOUT RECO NCILIATION IT WAS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE HOW THE ASSESSEES BALANCES WERE MOR E THAN THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE BY THE SAID PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANIES. TH E ASSESSEE ALSO HAD NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO SUBSTANTIATE WHETHER THESE AMOUN TS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY PAID OR NOT. THE RELEVANT INFORMATION IS IN THE KNO WLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE IT HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE BURDEN AND PUT THE BLAME ON THE A.O. TO RECONCILE T HE DIFFERENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRANSACTION S AND IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCES. SINCE THE BU RDEN WAS NOT DISCHARGED WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AND THE CIT(A). UNLESS THE ASSESSEE RECONCILES THE TRANSACTIONS VIS--VIS THE SAID ACCOUNT COPIES OF THE PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANIES WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION T O CONSIDER THE GROUNDS AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL. IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY RECONCILIATION OR CLARIFICATION OR NOT EVEN A PAPER BOOK JUSTIFYING T HE GROUNDS WE HAVE NO OTHER GO THAN TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AND THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THE ADDITIONS ARE SUSTAIN ED. 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL TRIED TO DEFEND THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF NUWARE INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE ASSESSEES FACTS. IN THE A BOVE REFERRED CASE THE PROCEEDINGS WERE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 A ND THE ITAT WAS EXAMINING THE SCOPE OF ADDITIONS WHEN THE AO HAS NO T DISCUSSED ANYTHING ABOUT THE DISCREPANCIES. BUT THE FACTS ARE DIFFEREN T IN THIS CASE. FIRST OF ALL THE PROCEEDINGS ARE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3). THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECONCILE AMOUNTS. THE AMOUNTS VI S--VIS THE PURCHASES AND SALES HAVE BEEN RECONCILED AND THE ADDITION IS BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF OUTSTANDING LIABILITY THE DIFFERENCE OF WHICH AROS E AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO RECONCILE THE TRANSACTIONS DURING THE YEAR. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE WE ARE NOT INCLINED ON THE ASSESSEES CONTENT ION THAT THE CASE LAW QUOTED SUPRA WILL APPLY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE BURDEN WE REJECT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND CONFIRM THE ADDITI ONS MADE BY THE A.O. ITA NO. 5479& 3059/MUM/2005/08 6 ITA NO. 3059/MUM/2008 10. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REFERENCE TO TH E LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO RECONCILE THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNTS AND ACCORDINGLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.10 57 944/- WAS CONSIDERED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U NDER SECTION 271(1)(C). THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 11. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO LEVY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). IT MAY BE TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE WHIC H RESULTED IN ADDITION. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTI CULARS OF INCOME. THERE MAY BE A GENUINE RECONCILIATION DIFFICULTY AS EXPRE SSED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE SUSTAINED IN THE ABOVE APPEAL BUT WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE DOES NOT WARRANT ANY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). IN OUR VIEW THE ASSESSEES INABILITY TO RECONCILE MAY BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR AN ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME B UT NOT ENOUGH FOR SUSTAINING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). CONSIDE RING THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE DELETE THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). ACCO RDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE PENALTY. 12. IN THE RESULT ITA 5479 IS DISMISSED AND ITA 3059 I S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH JANUARY 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 7 TH JANUARY 2010 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) XXII MUMBAI 4. THE CIT XXII MUMBA I CITY 5. THE DR H BENCH ITAT MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR N.P. ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI ITA NO. 5479& 3059/MUM/2005/08 7 S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 18.12.09 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 24.12.09 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER