THE ACIT CEN CIR-42, MUMBAI v. SMT. SHUBHANGI MANJREKAR, MUMBAI

ITA 6681/MUM/2007 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 668119914 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AFGPM5586G
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6681/MUM/2007
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant THE ACIT CEN CIR-42, MUMBAI
Respondent SMT. SHUBHANGI MANJREKAR, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 09-03-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 09-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 09-02-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 05-11-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA J.M. AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY A.M. I.T.A. NO. 6 681 & 6682/MUM/2007 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 & 2005-06. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX SHUBHANGI MANJREKAR CIRCLE-42 MUMBAI. VS. B-601 VINTAGE PEARL 29 TH ROAD BANDRA. MU MBAI -50 PAN AFGPM5586G APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. NO. 671 1 & 6683/MUM/2007 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 & 2005-06. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AMAR H. MANJREKAR CIRCLE-42 MUMBAI. VS. B-601 VINTAGE PEARL 29 TH ROAD BANDRA (W) MUMBAI 50. PAN AFGPM5599H. APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIKRAM GAUR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.M. PORWAL. O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY A.M. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND DI RECTED AGAINST IDENTICAL ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-I MUM BAI DATED 17-08-2007 IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHUBHANGI MANJREKAR FOR ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AND DATED 16-08-2007 AND 14-08-2007 IN THE CASE AMAR H. MAJREKAR FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 R ESPECTIVELY. AS THE ISSUES ARISING IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON FOR THE SAKE OF 2 CONVENIENCE THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED O F BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE INDIVIDUALS AND MR. AMAR H. MANJREKAR IS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S AMAR BUILDERS AN D SMT. SHUBHANGI MANJREKAR IS PROPRIETOR OF M/S PRITAM CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD. BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTORS OF M/S PRITAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. M/S HRISHKESH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND M/S ASITA FINANC E & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. MR. AMAR H. MANJREKAR AS KARTA OF THE HU F IS ALSO THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S HRISHKESH DEVELOPERS. BOTH THE AS SESSEES HAD DECLARED INCOME FROM BUSINESS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS WELL AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SMT. SHUBHNGI A. MANJREKAR IS W IFE OF SHRI AMAR H. MANJREKAR. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/ S 132(4) ON 20-11- 2004. IN A STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) SHRI AMAR H. MANJREKAR HAD DECLARED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1.5 CRORES AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE BREAK-UP IN THE CASE OF AMAR H. MANJREKAR IS AS FOLLOWS : CASH COLLECTED FROM SALE OF PLOTS AT AMAR SHRUSHT I 70 57 000 DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR AMAR SHUSHTI 26 54 000 HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES NOT ACCOUNTED FOR 2 00 000 OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS 82 670 __________ TOTAL 99 94 000 SIMILARLY THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN THE CASE OF AMAR H. MANJREKAR IS AS FOLLOWS : AMOUNT SPENT IN THE DAUGHTERS MARRIAGE NOT 5 00 000 ACCOUNTED FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES NOT ACCOUNTED FOR 1 00 000 OMISSION AND COMMISSIONS 2 00 000 __________ 8 00 00 0 __________ 3 3. THEREAFTER SHRI AMAR H. MANJREKAR THROUGH A LE TTER DATED 09-10-2006 HAS RETRACTED HIS DECLARATION AND DENIED ANY KIND OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME. THE LETTER DATED 09-10-2006 IS EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE : DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION A SITUATION HAD ARISEN WHERE UNDER I WAS MOTIVATED TO MAKE AN ADMISSION OR SURRENDER OF A SUM OF RS..5 CRORES ALTHOUGH MY INCOME FROM UNDIS CLOSED SOURCES DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD WAS PRACTICALLY NIL . IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THAT AN ADMISSION IS THE BEST EVIDENCE AGAIN ST ONE WHO MAKES IT BUT ANY ADDITION MADE TO THE INCOME MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ADMISSION WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATING OR SUP PORTING EVIDENCE WOULD NOT BE SUSTAINABLE. THE ADMISSION/C ONFESSION OF A SUM OF RS.1.5 CRORES WAS MADE UNDER PRESSURE FROM T HE SEARCH PARTY AROUND 11 A.M. ON 20 TH NOVEMBER 2004. I WAS TOTALLY IN A DISTURBED STATE OF MIND CREATED DUE TO THE SEARCH O PERATIONS. CONTINUOUS PRESSURE FROM THE SEARCH PARTY THAT UNLE SS A SUM OF RS. 1.5 CRORES IS DECLARED THE SEARCH OPERATIONS WOULD NOT COME TO AN END AND LOOKING TO THE CONTINUOUS SEARCH GOING ON F OR LAST SO MANY HOUR I DECLARED A SUM OF RS. 1.5 CRORES. THUS I WA S UNDER COMPULSION TO DECLARE SUM OF RS. 1.5 CRORES ON ACCO UNT OF CONTINUOUS NON-ENDING SEARCH. FROM 19 TH NOVEMBER 2004 TILL DATE I WAS KEEPING SILENT SINCE I WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT ONCE A P ERSON MAKES A DECLARING OF A PARTICULAR SUM HE CANNOT WITHDRAW T HAT STATEMENT. ON 1 ST /2 ND MAY 2006 WHEN I MET MY SENIOR COUNSEL IN CONNECTIO N WITH FILING MY RETURN OF INCOME I WAS SHOWN CERTAIN SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT DECISION ON THE SUBJECT OF RET RACTION. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE SAID SUPREME COURT DECISI ON IN PULLAGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF KERAL (1973) 9 11 ITR 18 IS REPRODUCED BELOW : SUCH ADMISSION IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS CONCLUSIV E. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE WHO MADE THE ADMISSION TO SHOW THAT IT IS INCORRECT AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DO NO T DISCLOSE THE CORRECT STATE OF FACTS. 4 FROM THE ABOVE SUPREME COURT DECISION I WAS CONVIN CED THAT THE RETRACTION FROM ADMISSION IS PERMISSION IN LAW. THE STATEMENT RECORDED WAS INCORRECT. MY SENIOR COUNSEL ALSO BROUGHT TO NOTICE THAT SIMILAR VIEW WAS ALSO TAKEN BY THE P UNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ZKRISHAN LAL SHIV CHAND V S. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER I REQUESTED MY SENIOR C OUNSEL TO PREPARE A RETRACTION LETTER BASED ON THE INFORMATIO N FURNISHED BY ME ALTHOUGH MORE THAN 18 MONTHS HAVE EXPIRED SINCE THE TIME I MADE THE CONFESSION/ADMISSION. 4. THE AO HELD THAT THE LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESS EE DATED 09-10- 2006 IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS FOR THE REASON THAT A STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE ON 23-12 -2004 ON OATH U/S 131 WHICH WAS AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN ONE MONT H FROM THE DATE OF DECLARATION MADE U/S 132(4) ON 20-11-2004 AND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 23-12-2004 GAVE A BIFURCATION OF PART OF THE DECLARATION OF RS. 1.5 CRORES MADE ON 20-11-2004. T HIS BIFURCATION WAS GIVEN IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.2. IN QUESTION NO. 3 THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE ON HIS OW N. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT STATED ANYTHING. THE AO CONCLUDED THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER PRESSURE AFTER ONE MONT H FROM THE DATE OF SEARCH ACTION. HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE R ETRACTION ON 09-10- 2006 WHICH IS ALMOST AFTER TWO YEARS AND THE ASSESS EE HAD STATED IN HIS RETRACTION LETTER THAT HE HAD MADE SUCH RETRACTION AT THE INSTANCE OF HIS COUNSEL. THEREAFTER THE AO EXAMINED THE STATEMENT A ND AFTER REJECTING THE RETRACTION ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS.2 71 39 370/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI AMAR H. MANJREKAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 THE AO ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS.3 15 06 270. SIMILARLY FOR THE OTHER ASSESSEE I.E. SUBHANGI MANJREKAR ASS ESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED A T RS.3 09 13 920/- 5 AND RS.1 69 86 560/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004- 05 AND 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE M ATTER IN APPEAL. 5. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN A DETAILED ORD ER CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE RETRACTION IN QUESTION WAS VALI D IN LAW. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON A NUMBER DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISI ON OF MUMBAI G- BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DINESH VED VS. DCIT (INV.)-CIRCLE- 11(1) IN IT(SS)A.NO. 479/MUM/2003. THEREAFTER HE DE LETED THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THE GROUND THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINE D MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DISCLOSURE. ON CERTAIN MINOR ADDITIONS THE FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY SUSTAINED SOME OF THE ADDITIONS. AGGRIEVED THE REV ENUE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : (I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE EVIDENTIAR Y VALUE OF THE CONTEMPORARY STATEMENT OF MR. AMAR H. MANJREKAR HUSBAND OF ASSESSEE RECORDED U/S 132 OF THE I.T. AC T 1961 DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION ? (II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.15 29 700/- AND RS.24 81 700/- FOR A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHUBHANGI MANJREKAR AND RS.8 00 000/- AND RS.99 94 000/- FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY IN THE CASE OF SHR I AMAR H. MANJREKAR BASED ON THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE MADE U/S 132(4) OF THE I.T. ACT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT (A) THERE WAS NO THREAT OR COERCION ON THE ASSESSEE FOR GIVING THE STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE THIS IS PROVED BY THE FACT THAT RETRACTION FROM THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN MA DE AFTER A LONG GAP I.E. AFTER TWO YEARS FROM MAKING T HE ORIGINAL STATEMENT. THE WITNESSES HAVE ALSO NOT COM E FORWARD IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO COMPLAINT OR FIR FOR UNDER PRESSURE APPLIED ON HIM BY THE AUTHOR IZED OFFICERS WAS FILED. 6 (B) IN VIEW OF SEVERAL COURT DECISION THE STATEMENT GI VEN U/S 132(4) OF THE I.T. ACT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS BINDING ON THE PERSON GIVING THE STATEMENT. (III) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 6. THE LEARNED DR MR. VIKRAM GAUR VEHEMENTLY CONT ENDED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR IN ACCEPTING THE RETRACTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ITA NO. 6683/MUM/2007 IN THE CASE OF AMAR H. MANJREKAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IS THE LE AD ORDER IN ALL THESE CASES AND PROPOSED TO TAKE THIS APPEAL FIRST. MR. V IKRAM GAUR TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH THE LETTER DATED 09-10-2006 WRITTEN B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR RETRACTING FROM HIS ADMISSION OR SURRENDER OF A SUM OF RS. 1.5 CRORES AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WHICH IS EXTRACTED AT PAGES 2 AN D 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEREAFTER TOOK THE BENCH THROUGH VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO. THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING I NTO 52 PAGES WHICH CONSIST OF XEROX COPIES OF STATEMENTS OF MRS. SHUBHANJI MANJREKAR SHRI AMAR H. MANJREKAR AS WELL AS TYPED COPIES OF THE SAME. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE FIRST STATEMENT WAS GIVEN B Y MR. AMAR H. MANJREKAR ON 20-11-2004 AT 9 A.M. I.E. DURING DAY. HE SUBMITTED THEREAFTER AFTER MORE THAN ONE MONTH ON 23-12-200 4 THE ASSESSEE GAVE YET ANOTHER STATEMENT NOT ONLY CONFIRMING HIS EARLI ER DISCLOSURE BUT ALSO GIVING A BREAK-UP OF THE AMOUNTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RETRACTED TO A LETTER DATED 09-10-2006 ONLY AFTER 18 MONTHS. HE POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS ON THIS DATE I.E. 09-10-2006 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE U/S 153A THUS HE CON TENDED THAT SUCH A RETRACTION AFTER 18 MONTHS AND THAT TOO IN A GENER AL MANNER AND PURPORTEDLY AT THE ADVISE OF THE COUNSEL IS BAD IN LAW. HE DREW THE 7 ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO PAGE 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE FACTS STA TED BY HIM IN THE STATEMENTS AND THIS HAS NOT BEEN CONTRADICTED BY TH E ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF RETRACTION. HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH T O THE COPIES OF VARIOUS SEIZED DOCUMENTS AT PAGES 38 AND 39 OF THE DEPARTME NTS PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS BASED ON THESE NOTINGS IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THE FACTS AND THEREAFTER CA ME OUT WITH THE VOLUNTARY DECLARATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ASS ESSEE HAS RETRACTED FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT HE WAS SO ADVISED BY THE COUN SEL SUCH RETRACTION CANNOT BE HELD AS VALID IN LAW. HE POINTED OUT THAT NO EFFORT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO CONVINCE THE AO THAT THE FACTUAL MA TTERS STATED IN THE STATEMENT WAS NOT THE CORRECT POSITION OF FACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE ORIGINAL STA TEMENT AS WELL AS THE SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT GIVEN AFTER ONE MONTH IN THE Y EAR 2004 IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS : 1) HIRALAL MAGANLAL & CO. VS. DCIT 96 ITR 113 (BOM). 2) GREENVIEW RESTAURANT VS. ACIT 263 ITR 169 ( GAUHATI). 3) CHUHARMAL VS. CIT 172 ITR 250 (SC). 4) T.S. KUMARSWAMY VS. ACIT 65 ITR 188 (MAD.). 7. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS GROUP OF CASES THERE ARE TWO OTHER ADDITIONS WHICH WERE DELETED BY THE L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND THE FIRST ADDITION IS ON ACCOUNT OF GOLD AND SI LVER. HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO AND RELIED UPON THE SAM E. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE FINDING OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTING THE AO TO GRANT TELESCOPING ON THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LAKHS FOUND IN CASH AT THE TIM E OF SEARCH. HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) BE REVERSED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE UPHELD. 8 8. MR. N.M. PORWAR LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY CONTROVERTED THE ARGUMENTS O F THE LEARNED DR AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER A BONAFID E BELIEF THAT ONCE A STATEMENT WAS GIVEN TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT T HEN IT CANNOT BE RETRACTED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. HE SUBMITTED TH AT ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE TOOK LEGAL HELP HE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN IF WRONG COULD BE RETRACTED. THUS HE SUBMITTED THAT O N OBTAINING LEGAL ADVISE THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO RETRACT FROM THE STAT EMENT ON 09-10-2006 AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE RETRACTION WAS RI GHT IN LAW. HE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION WAS NOT BASE D ON ANY MATERIAL FOUND OR SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND IT WAS MADE MERELY BASED ON A RETRACTED STATEMENT AND ALSO ON CERTAIN PRESUM PTIONS AND CONJECTURES. HE VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE DECISION O F G-BENCH OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN IT(SS)A.NO. 479/MUM/2003 IN THE CASE OF SHRI DINESH VED VS. DCIT CIR.-11(1) MUMBAI ORDER DAT ED 29 TH DEC. 2006 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BASED ON A STA TEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IS BAD IN LAW. FOR THE SAME PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF B-BENCH OF THE MUMBAI TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S PREM SONS IN ITA NO.4698/MUM/2008 ORDER DATED 15 TH JAN. 2009. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. RATAN CORPORATION (2005) 145 TAXMAN 503 (GUJ.) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHEN CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS ARE M ADE BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND WHEN THE SAME WAS OBTAINED WITH DUE PRESSURE AND WHEN THE SAME IS RETRACTED T HE AO SHOULD HAVE MADE FURTHER ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF THE SHOP OWNER S FROM WHOM IT IS SAID THAT ON-MONEY WAS RECEIVED AND FAILURE TO DO T HE SAME WOULD NOT GIVE THE AO THE RIGHT TO MAKE AN ADDITION. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN FERA APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2009 IN THE CASE OF MR. MEGHRAJ S. JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA ORDER DATED 9 TH JULY 9 2009 WHEREIN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RELIED O N THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VINOD SOLANKI VS. UNION OF INDIA 2009 (233) ELT 157 (SC) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT TH E ASSESSEE NEED NOT PROVE TO THE HILT THAT THE CONFESSION HAS BEEN OBT AINED FROM HIM BY INDUCEMENT OR THREAT BY THE PERSON IN AUTHORITY. 9. MR. PORWAL ON MERITS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HA D SUMMONED THE PURCHASERS OF THE FLATS AND ALL OF THEM HAVE DE NIED PAYING ANY AMOUNT IN CASH TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS HE ARGUES THAT THE AO HAS NO MATERIAL TO MAKE THE ADDITION. ON THE PIECES OF PAPER FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HE SUBMITTED THAT IT RELATED TO CERTAIN EST IMATES OF DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES INCURRED AND THE FACT WAS THERE WAS NO EX PENSES INCURRED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES HE SUBMITTED THAT NO ADD ITION CAN BE MADE. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY AND PRAYED THAT THE SAME BE UPHELD. 10. JOINING THE ISSUE MR. VIKRAM GAUR LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT NO PERSON CAN WITHDRAW A FACTUAL STATEMENT BY STATING THAT HE WAS LEGALLY ADVISED TO DO SO. THE MERE FACT THAT THE AS SESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RETRACT THE STATEMENT UNDER LAW CANNOT BE THE REAS ON FOR RETRACTING THE STATEMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE STATEMENT W AS RECORDED ON THE SUBSEQUENT DATE AT 9 AM RECORDING OF THE STATEMENT WAS SUSPENDED FOR CERTAIN PERIOD AND RESUMED THE NEXT DAY. HE DIFFERE NTIATED THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 11. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDER ATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND A PERUSAL O F THE PAPERS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL S T HE CASE LAWS CITED WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 10 12. THE ASSESSEES PREMISES WAS SEARCHED U/S 132 O N 19-11- 2004. ON 20-11-2004 AT ABOUT 9 AM THE RECORDING OF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COMMENDED AND AFTER ANSWERING VARIOUS QUES TIONS ON MANY FACTUAL MATTERS THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN A DISCLOSUR E OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1.5 CRORES. IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 18 THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED AS FOLLOWS : Q. 18. ON COMPILATION OF THE OVERALL UNDISCLOSED IN COME THE FOLLOWING SUMMARY IS MADE. PLEASE CONFIRM THE SAME. AMOUNT (RS.) A) CASH COLLECTED FROM SALE OF PLOTS AT AMAR SHRISHTI HADAPSAR. 70.57 LAKHS B) CASH RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF SHOPS AT AMAR SAMRUDHI HADAPSAR. 9.50 LAKHS. C) CASH RECEIVED FROM SALE OF FLATS AT AAMAR SAM RUDHI HADAPSAR. 29.56 LAKHS D) DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AT LAND FOR AMAR AMBIEN CE 26.00 LAKHS E) EXPENSES INCURRED AT THE TIME OF DAUGHTERS MARRIAGE (MISS PRITAM) NOT ACCOUNTED FOR 5.00 LAKHS. F) HOUSEHOLD EXPENSE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR 3.00 LAKHS _________ __ 143.63 L AKHS _________ __ ANS. I HEREBY CONFIRM THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 143.63 LAKHS WAS REMAINED TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE REGULAR BOOKS O F A/CS AND WITH THE FURTHER ADDITION OF RS. 63.7 LAKHS TOWARDS ANY OMISSION & COMMISSION WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN REMAINED UNACCOUNTED DURING THE LAST 2-3 YEARS. I HEREBY DECLARE AN ADDITIONAL IN COME OF RS.1.50 CRORES (ONE CRORE AND FIFTY LAKH RUPEES ONLY) FOR T HE RESPECTIVE YEARS AS DISCUSSED) ABOVE. THE NECESSARY CHARGES IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF A/CS WILL BE MADE BY INCORPORATING THE ABO VE MENTIONED 11 DEFICIENCIES AND THE TAX LIABILITY ON SUCH UNDISCLO SED INCOME WILL BE FULLY DISCHARGED. 13. THEREAFTER IN A STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH ON 23-12-2004 IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 2 THE ASSESSEE STATED AS FO LLOWS : Q. 2 DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS YOUR STATEMENT WAS RECORDED AT AMAR HOUSE ON 20-11-2004. IN THIS STATEMENT YOU HAD DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 1.5 CRORES UNDER THE VARIO US HEADS. ONE OF THE HEADS WAS REGARDING DECLARATION OF RS.5 LACS BE ING EXPENSES INCURRED AT THE TIME OF YOUR DAUGHTERS MARRIAGE (M ISS PRITAM) WHICH WERE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR. SIMILARLY ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS. 3 LACS WERE DISCLOSED TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES NO T ACCOUNTED FOR. A FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS.6.37 LACS WAS DECLARED FOR ANY OMISSIONS OR COMMISSION WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN REMAINE D UNACCOUNTED DURING THE LAST 2-3 YEARS. PLEASE STATE UNDER WHOSE NAME/CONCERN THE ABOVE MENTIONED AMOUNT ARE DISCLOS ED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME ALSO PLEASE SPECIFY THE YEAR IN WHICH YOU PROPOSED TO DECLARE THE ADDITIONAL INCOME. ANS. AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND AFTER CONSULTING MY WIFE MRS. SUBHANGI AMAR MANJREKAR THE AMOUNT OF RS.5 LACS DISCLOSED TOWARDS EXPENSES INCURRED AT THE TIME OF MY DAUGHTERS MARRIAGE WILL BE DISCLOSED IN MY ACCOUNT FOR FY 200 3-04 AS HER MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE ON 15-06-2003 AND EXPENSES WERE INCURRED PRIOR TO HER MARRIAGE IN THE MONTH OF MAY AND JUNE 2003. SIMILARLY THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3 LACS DISCLOSED TOWAR DS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES NOT ACCOUNTED FOR WERE ALSO SPENT FROM MY ACCOUNT. THE BIFURCATION OF THE SAME IS AS FOLLOWS : RS. 1 LAC SPENT AND HENCE DISCLOSED FOR A.Y. 2004 -05. RS. 2 LACS SPENT AND HENCE DISCLOSED FOR A.Y. 2005 -06. REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF RS.6.37 LACS DECLARED TOWAR DS OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3 LACS ARE BEING DECLARED IN THE CASE. OF M/S PRITAM CONSTRUCTIONS PROP. MRS. SHUB HANGI A. MANJREKAR AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3.37 LACS IS B EING DECLARED IN THE CASE OF M/S AMAR BUILDERS WHOSE PROP. IS MYS ELF. 14. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 3 HE STATED AS FO LLOWS: Q.3 DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE ? 12 ANS. NO. WHATEVER STATED ABOVE IS TRUE & CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. THE STATEMENT GIVEN ABOVE IS WITHOUT ANY COERCION THREAT OR UNDER INFLUENCE. I ALSO CONFIR M THAT THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN CORRECTLY RECORDED. 15. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCO ME ON 09-10- 2006 RETRACTING FROM THE DECLARATION AND HAS ALSO FILED A LETTER DATED 09- 10-2006 STATING THAT HE WAS MOTIVATED TO MAKE AN AD MISSION OR SURRENDER OF RS. 1.5 CRORES THOUGH HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS NIL. HE STATES THAT THE CONFESSION WAS MADE UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE SEARCH PARTY AT 11 AM ON 20 TH NOV. 2004. THEREAFTER HE SAYS THAT HE WAS IN A DI STURBED STATE OF MIND AND WAS UNDER COMPULSION. HE STATES THAT ON ME ETING WITH SENIOR COUNSEL IN CONNECTION WITH FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME HE CAME TO KNOW THE LEGAL POSITION THAT THE STATEMENT CAN BE R ETRACTED. HE REQUESTED HIS SENIOR COUNSEL TO PREPARE A RETRACTION LETTER A ND THE LETTER WAS ACCORDINGLY FILED. 16. ON A PERUSAL OF THE RETRACTION LETTER AND ON A CONSIDERATION OF SEQUENCE OF EVENTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE RETRACTION IN QUESTION IS NOT A VALID RETRACTION. A RETRACTION CA N BE MADE WHEN THERE ARE CERTAIN FACTUAL INACCURACIES IN THE STATEMENTS GIVE N OR IN CASES WHERE THE STATEMENT WAS GIVEN UNDER PRESSURE AND A COERCION A ND THE STATEMENTS ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE STATEMENTS ARE CONTRARY TO FACTS. NOWHERE IN THE RETRACTION LETTER THE ASSESSEE REFERS TO THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 23 -12-2004 ON OATH. IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESEES PREMISES WA S SEARCHED ON 19 TH AND 20 TH JAN. 2004 AND UPTO OCT. 2006 THE ASSESSEE HAD N OT CONSULTED ANY LEGAL PERSON. A RETRACTION FOR THE SAKE OF AVAILING THE RIGHT TO RETRACT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A VALID RETRACTION. 13 17. COMING TO VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE CASE OF DINESH VED (SUPRA) THE STATEMENT IN QUESTI ON WAS RECORDED AT LATE NIGHT AROUND 3.30 AM AND THE ASSESSEE HAD A 79 YEAR S OLD MOTHER AT HOME AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES HE AGREED TO THE SUGGESTION OF THE REVENUE. THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON 09-02-1999 A ND WITHIN A PERIOD OF 5 MONTHS THE ASSESSEE HAD PARTLY RETRACTED THE S TATEMENT WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAD FILED A RETRACTION STATEMENT ON 08-09-1999. IN THIS CASE THE STATEMENT WAS GIVEN AT 11 AM ON 20 TH NOV. 2004. THE ASSESSEE HAD REITERATED THIS STATEMENT A MONTH THEREAFTER ON 23- 12-2004 ON OATH. RETURNS WERE FILED ONLY ON 09-10-2 006 AND ON THE SAME DAY THERE WAS A RETRACTION. THUS THE FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF SHRI DINESH VED 18. COMING TO THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI B-BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S PREM SONS IT WAS A CAS E OF SURVEY AND NOT A CASE OF SEARCH. IN THE CASE OF M/S RATAN CORPORATIO N (SUPRA) THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WAS CONSIDERING A SITUATION WHER E UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT WAS MADE BY A PARTNER ON PRESSURE AND THEREAFTER HE RETRACTED THE SAME BY GIVING A DETAIL ED AFFIDAVIT. THE COURT HELD THAT ON SUCH RETRACTION THE TRIBUNAL RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE AO TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF SHOP OWNERS. THE COURT RECORDED THE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT AND FOUND THAT CERTAIN QUESTIONS PERTAINED TO INVES TMENT DETAILS OF ANOTHER FIRM WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A PARTNER AND HE NCE THE STATEMENTS COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON IN THE LINE OF THE AFFIDAV ITS OF THE RETRACTION AND OTHER EVIDENCE ON RECORD. IN OTHER WORDS THE EVIDE NTIARY VALUE OF THE STATEMENT IS CONSIDERED. IN THIS CASE THE CIT(APPEA LS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE VARIOUS FACTUAL STATEMENTS MADE IN T HE STATEMENTS RECORDED. 14 THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WHAT I S STATED IN THE REPLY TO THE QUESTION IN THE STATEMENTS ARE FACTUALLY INCOR RECT. THUS IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION THIS DECISION DOES NOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE. 19. THE NEXT DECISION IS IN THE CASE OF MR. MEGHRA J S. JAIN (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CONSID ERED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VINOD SOLA NKI (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE THE RETRACTION WAS AFTER TWO DAYS AND THE ONLY PROPOSITION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE TO THE HILT THAT THE CONFESSION WAS UNDER THREAT OR INDUCEMENT. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN MADE AN ALLEGATION THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 23-12-200 4 THAT IS AFTER ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS UNDER THREAT AND COERCION. JUST BECAUSE A SENIOR COUNSEL SUGGESTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS A RIGHT TO RETRACT HE CANNOT RETRACT THE SAME. 20. COMING TO THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LEA RNED DR IN THE CASE OF GREEN VIEW RESTAURANT 263 ITR 169 THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS FOLLOWS : HELD (I) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE STATEMENT ON SEPTEMBER 23 1993 IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO WITNESSE S. THE RETRACTION OF THE STATEMENT CAME ONLY ON DECEMBER 2 4 1993 FOLLOWED BY A RETRACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E ON FEBRUARY 20 1995 IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THER E WAS A DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND ITS PARTNER IN RETR ACTING THE STATEMENT RECORDED. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABL ISH THAT ANY ATTEMPT WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE ALLEGATION OF INDUCEMENT THREAT OR COERCION THROUGH THE WITNE SSES. THUS THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS COUNT W AS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. (II) THAT THE ADMITTED CASE WAS THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR BOTH THE YEARS HAD BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT 1961 AND NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2). I T WAS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED RS.4 LAKHS AS UNDI SCLOSED INCOME 15 ACTING ON THE STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEES PARTNER MADE IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THOUGH IN THE MEANTIME THE STAT EMENTS MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH HAD BEEN RETRACTED THERE WAS NO REFERENCE THERETO IN THE ORDERS. THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO INDICATE EITHER THAT IN VIEW OF THE RETRACTION OF THE STATEMENT TH E ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED WITH ANY OPPORTUNITY OF EXPLAINING THE DIS CLOSURE VIS-- VIS ITS LIABILITY IN RESPECT THEREOF. THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ADDRESS ITSELF TO THIS VITAL ASPECT OF THE MATTER. THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL RESTORING THE AMOUNT OF RS.4 LAKHS AS UNDISCLOSED I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION WAS L IABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 21. IN THE CASE OF CHUHARMAL VS. CIT 172 ITR 250 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT ONLY THE RIGOUR OF THE RULE S OF EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE EVIDENCE ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE; B UT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WHEN THE TAXING AUTHORITIES WERE DESIROUS OF INVOKING THE PRINCIPLES OF THE EVIDENCE ACT IN PROCEEDING BEFORE THEM THEY WERE PREVENTED FROM DOING SO. 22. THE MADRAS B-BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF T.S. KUMARASAMY VS. ACIT 65 ITD 188 HELD THAT WHERE AN A DDITION WAS BASED ON ASSESSEES OWN ADMISSION MADE ON OATH U/S 132(4) EVEN THOUGH THE SAID ADMISSION WAS LATER ON RETRACTED I T COULD NOT BE DELETED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE BEC AUSE IT WAS NOT PROVED THAT SUCH ADMISSION WAS INVOLUNTARY OR TENDE RED UNDER COERCION OR DURESS. 23. IN THE CASE OF HIRALAL MAGANLAL & CO. VS. DCIT 96 ITD 113 (MUM) THE ITAT D-BENCH MUMBAI CONSIDERED THE ISS UE AT LENGTH AND HELD THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE MAKES A DECLARATION OF U NACCOUNTED INCOME ON OATH AND WHEN THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES ACCEP TED THE SAME AND DID NOT PROCEED WITH FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT AT A LATER DATE DENY THE TRUTH OR CORRECTNESS OF THE DECLARAT ION MADE AT THE TIME OF 16 SEARCH. IT FURTHER HELD THAT WHEN THE RETRACTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY INDEPENDENT OR RELIABLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE INCORRECT NATURE OF FACTS CONFESSED IN STATEMENT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAK ING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON THE DECLARATION OF THE CONFESSIONAL STA TEMENT MADE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. 24. IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION THE PROPOSITION LAID DO WN IN THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS DISCUSSED ABOVE ARE APPLICABLE T O THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 25. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AFTER EXTRACTING THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM PAGE 3 TO 19 CAME TO ERRONEOUS CO NCLUSION THAT THE RETRACTION AFTER THE LONG PERIOD OF TIME WAS VALIDL Y DONE. IF THE RETRACTION IS MADE WELL IN TIME THEN POSSIBLY THE AO WOULD HA VE SUFFICIENT TIME TO CONDUCT ENQUIRIES. WHEN A STATEMENT IS RETRACTED ON 19-10-2006 AND THE ASSESSMENT IS TO BE COMPLETED BY 31 ST DEC. 2006 IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE BELATED RETRACTION HAS PREVENTED THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FROM CONDUCTING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATI ONS INTO THE MATTER. EACH OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAVE TO BE VIEWED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS OF TH OSE PARTICULAR JUDICIAL DECISIONS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILES RETRACTION AT TH E FAG END OF THE TIME BARRING PERIOD THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS IN ERROR IN RE CORDING A FINDING THAT THE AO HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATIO N INTO THE MATTER. NO DOUBT THE BOARDS CIRCULAR NO. 286/2/2003/IT(INV.) DATED 10-03-2003 STATES THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD NOT BE MADE MERELY ON THE STRENGTH OF ADMISSION IF ANY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE AO SHOULD CARRY ON FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND BASED THE ADDITIONS ON EV IDENCES GATHERED. AS ALREADY STATED FOR IMPLIMENTING THIS CIRCULAR THE AO SHOULD HAVE ADEQUATE TIME. THOUGH THE CIT(APPEALS) PROCEEDED T O CONSIDER THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS AS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT THE AO 17 SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTER AND READJUDICATE THE SAME WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(APPEALS) AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH A DJUDICATION. 26. IN THE RESULT WE ALLOW GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 27. GROUND NO. 3 AND 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND D ID NOT REQUIRE SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 28. IN THE RESULT ITA NO. 6683/MUM/2007 IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 29. AS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE OTHER THRE E CASES IN ITA NO.6681 6682 AND 6711/MUM/2007 ARE IDENTICAL IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION IN ITA NO. 6683/MUM/2007 AND THE DECISIO N TAKEN THEREIN WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRES H ADJUDICATION. 30. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF MARCH 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. MUMBAI DATED : 9 TH MARCH 2010. WAKODE 18 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR A-BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 25-0202010 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 04-03-2010 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED / APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER ___________ 5. APPROVED DRAFT CAME TO PS ___________ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON ___________ 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK ___________ 8. FILE SENT TO THE HEAD CLERK ___________ 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER ___________