Smt. Saroj Dassani, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

CO 277/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0010 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV RAKHEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: B R R KUMAR
• Keywords: Business income; Rule of consistency
• Section: 80HHC; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2503 /DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 ITO ,WARD 24(3), VS. SMT. SAROJ DASSANI, NEW DELHI. 258F, MAIDAN GARHI, NEAR IGNOU NEW DELHI GIR / PAN:AARPD9975A C.O. NO.277/DEL/2012 (A.Y. 2003-04) SMT. SAROJ DASSANI, VS. ITO, WARD 24(3), 258F, MAIDAN GARHI, NEW DELHI NEAR IGNOU, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI BRR KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GAURAV RAKHEJA, ADV. ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 20.03.2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROS S OBJECTIONS TO THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY TH E REVENUE ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC ON INTER EST INCOME OF RS. 6,31,583/- CREDITED IN THE P & L A/C. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC ON THE P ROFIT ON DEPB ITA NO.2503/DEL/2012 C.O. NO.277/DEL/2012 2 SCHEME WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AMOU NTING TO RS. 97,06,251/-. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN EXPORTER AND HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D CREDITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,31,583/- IN THE P & L ACCOUNT AS INTERESTS ON INCOME TAX REFUND. THE A.O. HELD THAT THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST WAS NOT BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, HE ASSESSED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED PROFITS FROM DEPB SCHEME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.97,06,251/-. RELYING UPON THE AMENDMENT NO.55 OF TAXATION LAW AM ENDMENT ACT 2005 WHICH WAS EFFECTIVE FORM 01.04.1998 HE OBSERVED THA T THE EXPORT TURNOVER OF ASSESSEE EXCEEDED RS.10 CRORES, THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ON FULFILLMENT OF CER TAIN CONDITIONS, THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC BY HOLDING AS UNDER: THUS, THE PLAIN READING OF THE AMENDED SECTION 80- HHC MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE PROFITS FROM THE DEPB SCHEME ARE TO BE TREATED AS 'BUSINESS INCOME'. THE PROFITS DERIVED F ROM EXPORTS ARE TO BE CALCULATED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (A) O R CLAUSE (B) OR CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 80-HHC (3) DEPENDING ON THE C ATEGORY OF THE EXPORTER. HOWEVER, IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE EXPORT T URNOVER EXCEEDS RS. 10 CRORES, THE AMENDED PROVISIONS SO PROVIDE TH AT 90% OF THE PROFITS FROM DEPB SCHEME SHALL BE ADDED TO THE PROF ITS AS COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OR CLAUSE (C) OF SEC TION 80-HHC (3) ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT E VIDENCE TO PROVE THAT: (A) HE HAD THE OPTION TO CHOOSE EITHER THE DUTY DR AWBACK OR THE DEPB SCHEME; AND (B) THE RATE OF DRAWBACK CREDIT ATTRIBUTABLE TO TH E CUSTOMS DUTY WAS HIGHER THAN THE RATE OF CREDIT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE DEPB SCHEME. ITA NO.2503/DEL/2012 C.O. NO.277/DEL/2012 3 THEREFORE, IN CASES WHERE THE ABOVE TWO CONDITIONS ARE NOT SATISFIED BY THE ASSESSEE. 90% OF THE PROFITS FRO M THE DEPB SCHEME SHALL NOT BE ADDED TO THE PROFITS AS COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OR CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 80-LLLIC (3). IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE EXPORT TURNOVER OF THE ASS ESSEE EXCEEDS RS. 10 CRORES AND HE DOES NOT SATISFY THE TWO CONDITIONS A S SPECIFIED IN THE THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 80-HHC (3) AS LAID DOWN BY THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005. THEREFORE, VIDE ORDER S HEET ENTRY DATED 16.1.2006, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE FO LLOWING: 'THE EXPORT TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDS RS. 10 CRORES. AS PER THE THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 80-HHC (3), THE AS SESSEE DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE SAID PR OVISO. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 90% OF THE DEPB BENEFITS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDED BACK TO THE PROFITS COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 80-HHC (3) NOT BE DISALLOWED AND THE DEDUCTION U/S 80-HHC BE RECOMPUT ED ACCORDINGLY.' IN RESPONSE TO THIS SPECIFIC QUERY, THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION. THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT , 2005, WITH REGARD TO THE TAXABILITY OF THE PROFITS FROM D EPB SCHEME ARE VERY CLEAR AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO AGREES TO THE SAME . THE PROFITS FROM DEPB SCHEME, WHICH HAVE ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTS TO RS. 97,06,2511-. S UCH PROFITS FROM DEPB SCHEME ARE BUSINESS INCOME AS PER SECTION 28 ( IIID). THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM EXPORTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE TO BE CALCULATED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (A) TO S ECTION 80-HHC (3). HOWEVER, AS THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONDI TIONS AS LAID DOWN IN THE THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 80-HHC (3), 90% OF THE PROFITS FROM THE DEPB SCHEME CANNOT BE ADDED BACK TO THE PROFITS AS COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 80-HHC (3) OF THE I.T. ACT. T HEREFORE, AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80-HHC AS DISCUSSED A T LENGTH ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ALLOWED TO ADD BACK 90% OF THE PROFITS FROM THE DEPB SCHEME TO THE PROFITS AS COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 80-HHC (3) AND DEDUCTION U/S 80-HHC IS RECOMPUTED A CCORDINGLY. KEEPING IN VIEW THE CIRCULAR NO. 2/2006 DATED 17.1. 2006 OF CBDT, NO INTEREST IS TO BE CHARGED AND NO PENALTY IS TO B E LEVIED IN RESPECT OF THE FRESH DEMAND RAISED CONSEQUENT TO THE ENACTMENT OF TAXATION ITA NO.2503/DEL/2012 C.O. NO.277/DEL/2012 4 LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 ON ACCOUNT OF THE VARIAT ION IN RETURNED/ASSESSED INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROFIT S FROM THE DEPB SCHEME. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE PROFIT S UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 80HHC(3) THE RESULTANT FIGURE IS A L OSS. SINCE HT EXPORT TURNOVER OF HT ASSESSEE EXCEEDS RS.10 AS PER HT FIF TH PROVISO TO SECTION 80-HHC (3) READ WITH THE THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 8 0-HHC(3), THIS LOSS CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS FROM THE DEPB SCHEME. THEREFORE, THE PROFIT UNDER CLAUSE (A) TO SECTION 8 0-HHC(3) BEING A NEGATIVE FIGURE, NO DEDUCTION U/S 80-HHC IS ALLOWAB LE TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AS UNDER: I) DEDUCTION UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST INCOME: 4.2 THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF HT A.O. AND IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO MAKE TH E DISALLOWANCE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.39,60,219/- AGA INST HT INTEREST RECEIPT OF RS.6,31,583/- AND IT IS SUBMITTED THAT T HERE IS NO INTEREST INCOME AS SUCH AS PAYMENT IS MORE THAN THE RECEIPT. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME IS FROM THE FDRS WHICH ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREDIT FACILITIES AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE ASSESSE E'S OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2001-02 BY THE ORDER DATED 02112/2005 OF THE HON 'BLE TRIBUNAL ( VIDE PARAS-3, 4 & 5 (ITA NO. 5360/DE1L2004). 4.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDER / DISALLOWANCE OF THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND I FIND CONSIDERABLE MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO IS NOT JUSTI FIED TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE H ON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE AND ACCORDINGLY THE AO IS D IRECTED TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY. II) DISALLOWANCE U/S 80HHC: ITA NO.2503/DEL/2012 C.O. NO.277/DEL/2012 5 5.2 THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO AND IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO MAK E THE DISALLOWANCE AS THE AO IS REQUIRED TO EXCLUDE ONLY THE 90% OF THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE A Y THE PROFIT OF THE DEPB SALE AND NOT THE ENTIRE DEPB SAL E AMOUNT. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED 2001-02 BY THE ORDER DATED 02/12/200 5 OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAS- 8 & 9 (I A- NO. 5360/DE1L2004). 5.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDER/DISALLOWANCE OF TH E AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND I FIND CONSIDERABLE MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO IS NOT JUSTI FIED TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE H ON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE AND ACCORDINGLY THE AO IS D IRECTED TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AN D THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION. 5. AT THE OUTSET, LD. D.R. INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC IS TO BE LOOKED INTO IN VIEW O F THE LATEST JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS CIT, 247 CTR 353 AND FOR THE 2 ND ISSUE OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, LD. D.R. RELIE D UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF INTEREST, THE LD. A.R. S UBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE N ATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME AND IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, ON THE SAME FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES, HONBLE ITAT HAD CONSIDERED THE INCOME OF INTEREST AS BUSIN ESS INCOME AND, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY A LSO, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS INCOME. L D. A.R. ALSO ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST TO THE TUNE OF RS.50 .58 LACS AND INVITED OUR ITA NO.2503/DEL/2012 C.O. NO.277/DEL/2012 6 ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 24 WHERE THE SAID FIGU RE WAS APPEARING IN THE P & L ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FIXED DEPOSITS WERE MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ONLY AND THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE SAME. 7. AS REGARD THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC, LD. A.R. AGREED WITH THE PROPOSITION OF LD. D.R. THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUA RELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA). 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUG H THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF INTEREST IS S QUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE AND INCURRED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.50.58 LACS AND HAD CREDITED INTERESTS INCOME OF RS.6,31,583/-. THEREFORE, ONLY NET INTER EST INCOME IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION AS TO W HETHER THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTS BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SINCE THE NET INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INTER EST IS NEGATIVE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INTEREST BEING CONSIDERED AS INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. 9. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HH C, WE FIND THAT HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: BUSINESS INCOME-BENEFIT OR PERQUISITE UNDER S. 28( IIID}-SALE OF DEPB ENTITLEMENT-DEPB IS A KIND OF ASSISTANCE GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO AN EXPORTER TO PAY CUSTOMS D UTY ON ITS IMPORTS AND IT IS RECEIVABLE ONCE EXPORTS ARE MADE AND AN A PPLICATION IS MADE BY THE EXPORTER-THUS, DEPB IS 'CASH ASSISTANCE' REC EIVABLE BY A PERSON AGAINST EXPORTS UNDER THE SCHEME OF GOVERNME NT OF INDIA AND FALLS UNDER CL. (IIIB) OF S.28 AND IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX EVEN BEFORE IT IS TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE-AS PER CL.(IIID} OF S.2 8, ANY PROFIT ON ITA NO.2503/DEL/2012 C.O. NO.277/DEL/2012 7 TRANSFER OF DEPB IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HE AD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION' AS AN ITEM SEPARAT E FROM CASH ASSISTANCE UNDER CL.(IIIB)- WORD 'PROFIT' MEANS THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF A BUSINESS TRANSACTION LESS THE COST OF THE TRANSAC TION-SINCE DEPB HAS DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE COST OF IMPORTS FOR MANUFACTU RING AN EXPORT PRODUCT, ANY AMOUNT REALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE OVER A ND ABOVE THE DEPB ON ITS TRANSFER WOULD REPRESENT PROFIT ON THE TRANSFER OF DEPB- THUS WHILE THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB FALLS UNDER C L. (IIIB) OF S.28, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE VALUE AND FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB FALLS UNDER CL. (IIID) OF S.28- COST OF ACQUIRING DEPB IS NOT NIL SINCE THE PERSON ACQUIRES IT BY PAYING CUSTOMS DUTY ON THE IM PORT CONTENT OF THE EXPORT PRODUCT AND THUS, THE DEPB WHICH ACCRUES TO A PERSON AGAINST EXPORTS HAS A COST ELEMENT IN IT- ACCORDINGLY, WHEN DEPB IS SOLD BY A PERSON, HIS PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB WOULD BE THE SALE VALUE OF DEPB LESS ITS FACE VALUE WHICH REPRESENT THE COST O F THE DEPB- THEREFORE, WHEN DEPB IS TRANSFERRED BY A PERSON, TH E ENTIRE SUM RECEIVED BY HIM ON SUCH TRANSFER DOES NOT BECOME HI S PROFITS-DEPB IS CHARGEABLE AS INCOME UNDER CL. (IIIB) OF S.28 IN TH E YEAR IN WHICH A PERSON APPLIES FOR DEPB CREDIT AGAINST THE EXPORTS WHEREAS THE PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB BY THAT PERSON IS CHARGEABLE AS INCOME UNDER CL. (IIID) OF S. 28 IN THE YEAR IN WHICH HE MAKES THE T RANSFER-WHERE, HOWEVER, THE DEPB ACCRUES TO A PERSON TO A PERSON A ND HE ALSO EARNS PROFIT ON THE TRANSFER OF DEPB IN THE SAME PREVIOUS YEAR, THE DEPB WOULD BE BUSINESS PROFITS UNDER CL. (IIIB) OF S. 28 AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE VALUE AND THE DEPB (FACE VALUE) WO ULD BE PROFITS ON TRANSFER OF DEPB UNDER CL. (IIID) FOR THE SAME ASSE SSMENT YEAR. 10. WE FIND THAT HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS LAID DOW N THE METHOD BY WHICH THE PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80HHC I S TO BE CALCULATED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING EXPORT TURNOVER EXCEEDI NG RS.10 CRORES. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT MATTER SHOULD BE READJUDICATED BY A.O. IN VIEW OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF TOPM AN EXPORTS (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.2503/DEL/2012 C.O. NO.277/DEL/2012 8 11. AS REGARD THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE, THE LD. A.R. HAD WITHDRAWN THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISMIS SED AS WITHDRAWN. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVEN UE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS C.O. FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 13. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH NOV., 2014. SD./- SD./- ( I. C. SUDHIR) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 14 TH NOV., 2014 SP COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI) S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 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 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER