KRISHNA LAND DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1057/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 105719914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH JOSHI
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Notional interest

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI, J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SMT. ASHA VIJAYRAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1057/MUM./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ) DATE OF HEARING 11.7.2011 M/S. KRISHNA LAND DEVELOPERS P. LTD. CORPORATE CENTRE, OPP. LOTUS SHITES HOTEL, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400 059 PAN AABCK9566F .. APPELLANT V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. RAKESH JOSHI REVENUE BY : MR. A.K. NAYAK O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24 TH DECEMBER 2009, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-V, MUMBAI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE BEIN G CONTRACTOR AND BUILDER, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION WORK. IT FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 28 TH OCTOBER 2005, DECLARING A LOSS OF ` 64,29,510. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PURCHASED A PROPERTY SITUATED AT CORPORATE CENTRE, I.T. PARK, CTS NO.271, VILLAGE KONDIVITE, A NDHERI (E), MUMBAI. M/S. KRISHNA LAND DEVELOPERS P. LTD. ITA NO.1057/M./2010 2 INFRASTRUCTURE AND EQUIPMENTS WERE INSTALLED IN THE SAID I.T. PARK AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS. THE I.T. PARK WAS DULY NOTIFIED BY TH E MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, NEW DELHI, VIDE NOTIFICATION S.O. N O.354(E) DATED 1 ST APRIL 2002, WHICH WAS LATER AMENDED VIDE LETTER DATED 5 TH JANUARY 2005. THE I.T. PARK WAS ALSO NOTIFIED BY CBDT, VIDE NOTIFICATION N O.61 DATED 22 ND JULY 2010. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY ALO NG WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE, EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES, WHICH WER E PRESCRIBED BOTH BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AS WELL AS THE CBDT. THE ASSES SEE HAS GIVEN THE PREMISES ON LEAVE AND LICENSE BASIS TO M/S. I-FLEX SOLUTION LTD. FOR A PERIOD OF 33 MONTHS ON CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS. THE I NCOME WAS OFFERED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION . THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SHAMBHU INVESTMENTS P. LTD. V/S CIT, 263 ITR 143 (SC), HELD THAT THE IN COME IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE ANNUAL VALUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECT ION 23(1)(A) AND MADE THE ADDITION. THE ANNUAL VALUE WAS FIXED AT ` 69,47,100. 4. THE ASSESSEE, BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CARRIED THE MATTER IN FIRST APPEAL, BUT WI THOUT ANY SUCCESS. STILL AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION O F ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE BUSINESS CENTRE INCOME AS INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION O F ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF ALL EXPENSES WITHOUT CO NSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION O F ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4)(III) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. M/S. KRISHNA LAND DEVELOPERS P. LTD. ITA NO.1057/M./2010 3 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION O F ASSESSING OFFICER IN ADDING ON AD-HOC BASIS THE INTEREST THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EARNED ON THE DEPOSIT TAKEN FROM THE IT COMPANY CLIENT WHO WAS OC CUPYING THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROP ERTY OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL, MR. RAKESH JOSHI, APPEA RING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER VIDE PARA-3, ACKNOWLEDGES THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LETTING OUT OF PREMISES AND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT SIMPLY LET OUT THE PREMISES BUT HAS BEEN PROVIDING COMPLEX SERVICES. HE POINTS OUT THAT THE PROPERTY IS A NOTIFIED I.T. PARK AND, HENC E, ONLY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RELATED ACTIVITIES WOULD BE CARRIED OUT. THE CHOICE OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIMITED AND THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PROVIDE IN ADDIT ION TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES, OPTICAL FIBER WIRE CABLING INSIDE THE E NTIRE PREMISES, INSTAL V-SAT AND ALSO OBTAINED HIGH SPEED DEDICATED LEASE LINES. HE SUBMITS THAT THE BUSINESS CENTRE FACILITIES LIKE WAITING ROOM, CONFE RENCE ROOM, VALET PARKING, RECEPTION, CANTEEN, 24 HOURS SECURITIES, INTERNAL F ACILITIES, HIGH SPEED LIFT, POWER BACK-UP, ETC., WERE PROVIDED AND BASIC INTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ONLY EARN RENTAL INCOME BUT TO RUN THE PREMISES ON I.T. PARK AS SERVICE CENTRE . HE POINTED OUT THAT ONLY IN SUCH CASES, THE ASSES SEE WOULD GET BETTER RETURNS. HE PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAVE IGNORED THE PROVISIONS OF COMPLEX SERVICES AND HAVE WRONGLY APPLIED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BL E SUPREME COURT IN SHAMBHU INVESTMENT. HE CLAIMED THAT THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IS IN HIS FAVOUR AS IT IS STATED THEREIN THAT TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT HEAD OF INCOME ONE HAS TO SEE THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITS THAT THE TERM BUSINESS IS DEFINED IN AN INCLUSIVE MANNER AND THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN A PROPERTY WHICH IS NOTIFIED AS AN I.T. PARK, BY THE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES, BY ITSELF DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS UNDERTAKEN CERTAIN RISKS, WHICH IS A FOREMOST CONDITION IN THE CASE OF BUSINESS. HE POINTS OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INCURRING EXPENDITURE FOR UP-K EEP OF VARIOUS ALLIED SERVICES. HE CLAIMED THAT THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE IN CLUDING DEPRECIATION IS HIGHER IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS A RGUMENTS, HE RELIED ON THE M/S. KRISHNA LAND DEVELOPERS P. LTD. ITA NO.1057/M./2010 4 FOLLOWING CASE LAWS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE IN COME IN QUESTION IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS , AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . ACIT V/S SAPTARSHI SERVICES LTD., (2004) 265 ITR 37 9 (GUJ.); HARVINDARPAL MEHTA V/S DCIT, (2009) 122 TTJ 163; AN D ITO V/S SHANAYA ENTERPRISES, ITA NO.3648/MUM./2010, ASSESS- MENT YEAR 2006-07 ORDER DATED 30 TH JUNE 2011 6. LEARNED COUNSEL, REFERRING TO GROUND NO.2, WHICH RE LATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURES, SUBMITS THAT THIS GRO UND IS CONSEQUENTIAL TO GROUND NO.1. 7. REGARDING GROUND NO.3, THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO SUB MITS THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT WAS DENIED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO BUSINESS INCOME. HE SUBMITS THAT THIS IS ALSO CONSEQUENTIAL TO GROUND N O.1. 8. ON GROUND NO.4, WHICH IS ON THE ALTERNATIVE ISSUE O F DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL LETTING VALUE UNDER SECTION 23(1)(A), LEARNE D COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT, THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY T HE FULL BENCH JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S MONI KUMAR SUBB A & ORS., (2011) 333 ITR 38 (DEL.). HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DCIT V/S RECLAMATION REALTY INDIA P. LT D., ITA NO.1411/ MUM./2007, ETC., ORDER DATED 4 TH JANUARY 2011, AND SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO TAKE A FAIR RENT DECIDED B Y THE BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AS ANNUAL LETTING VALUE. HE PRAYED FOR RELIEF. HE SUBMITS THAT THIS ISSUE WOULD NOT ARISE IF GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDE D IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, MR. A.K. NAYAK , ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND S UBMITS THAT THE PURCHASE WAS MADE FROM A SISTER CONCERN AND THE ASS ESSEE NEVER CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS IN THE PREMISES. HE REFERRED TO TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND POINTS OUT THAT ALL THE EXPENDITURE OF RUNNING M/S. KRISHNA LAND DEVELOPERS P. LTD. ITA NO.1057/M./2010 5 AND MAINTAINING THE BUSINESS CENTRE ARE BORNE BY M/ S. KRISHNA DEVELOPER P. LTD., I.E., THE COMPANY FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. HE SUBMITS THAT THIS IS A SISTER CONCERN AND THE OT HER CONCERN COLLECTS THE EXPENDITURE FROM ALL THE PARTIES. HE SUBMITS THAT T HE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES FROM THE BEGINNING WAS TO SIMPLY LEASE OUT THE PROP ERTY AND EARN A RETURN. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS, HE RELIED ON THE JUDGM ENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SHAMBHU INVESTMENTS P. LTD. (SUPRA). 10. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WHILE REFERRIN G TO GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3, SUBMITS THAT THEY ARE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATUR E. 11. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.4, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ON PERUSAL OF THE PAP ERS ON RECORD, AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS:- 13. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTIO N IS AN I.T. PARK, WITH ALL INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES AND SERVICES. TH IS IS NOT A SIMPLE BUILDING. THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, NOTIFIES C ERTAIN BUILDING AS I.T. PARK ONLY IF VARIOUS FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE, AS SPECIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT, ARE PROVIDED. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ALL THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, INFRASTRUCTURES, FACILITIES AND SERVI CES ARE BEING PROVIDED IN THIS BUILDING AND IT WAS ONLY FOR THIS REASON THAT NOT ONLY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES, BUT ALSO THE CBDT NOTIFIED T HE SAME AS AN I.T. PARK WHICH ENTITLES THE ASSESSEE TO EARN CERTAIN INCENTI VES. THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE PURCHASING THE PROPERTY IS TO PARTIC IPATE IN THE I.T. PARK AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE INTENTION IS ONLY TO INV EST IN PROPERTY. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SHANBHU INVESTMENTS P. LTD. (SUPRA ), CLEARLY LAYS DOWN THAT WHAT IS TO BE SEEN WAS THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF T HE ASSESSEE WHILE EXPLOITING THE PROPERTY. IF IT IS FOUND BY APPLYING SUCH TEST, THAT THE MAIN INTENTION IS TO LET OUT THE PROPERTY, IT MUST BE CO NSIDERED AS RENTAL INCOME OR M/S. KRISHNA LAND DEVELOPERS P. LTD. ITA NO.1057/M./2010 6 INCOME FROM PROPERTY. IN CASE IT IS FOUND THAT THE MAIN INTENTION IS TO EXPLOIT THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIE S, IN THAT EVENT, IT MUST BE HELD AS BUSINESS INCOME. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE IS OFFERING COMPLEX SERVICES BY WAY OF PROVIDING OPERATION PLAC E IN A NOTIFIED I.T. PARK, WITH ALL SERVICES AND AMENITIES SUCH AS INFRASTRUCT URE FACILITIES, WAITING ROOM, CONFERENCE ROOM, VALET PARKING, RECEPTION, CANTEEN, 24 HOURS SECURITIES, INTERNAL FACILITIES, HIGH SPEED LIFT, POWER BACK-UP , ETC. JUST BECAUSE A SISTER CONCERN INCURRED THIS EXPENDITURE AND CLAIMS REIMBU RSEMENT FROM THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE FACILITIES ARE NOT PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHOEVER MAINTAINS THEM, THE FACT REMAINS THAT IT IS THE ASSESSEE WHO ULTIMATELY BEARS SUCH EXPENDITURE FOR THE SERVI CES AND UNDERTAKES TO PROVIDE SUCH SERVICES. THE FACILITIES ARE MADE AVAI LABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PERSON OCCUPYING THE PREMISES. COMING TO THE CA SE LAWS IN SAPTARSHI SERVICES LTD. (SUPRA), THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COU RT HELD THAT THE INCOME EARNED FROM BUSINESS CENTRE IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THIS JUDGMENT WAS REJECTED BY THE HON'BLE S UPREME COURT WHICH IS REPORTED AS 264 ITR (ST.) 36. COMING TO THE DECISIO N OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN HARVINDARPAL MEHTA (SUPRA), THE TRI BUNAL, IN THIS DECISION, AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT IN SHAMBHU INVESTMEN TS P. LTD., HELD THAT THE INCOME EARNED FROM BUSINESS CENTRE IS TO BE ASS ESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION . THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SHANAYA ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) HELD THAT WHEN THE PROPERTY IS USED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND IN THE NATURE OF PROVI DING COMPLEX SERVICES, THE INCOME IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION . APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN IN THESE CASE L AWS, WE HOLD THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED ONLY FOR A SPECI FIC PURPOSE I.E., I.T. OPERATION AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED COMPLEX SER VICE FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR OPERATING SUCH BUSINESS AND ON T HIS FACTUAL MATRIX, WE UPHOLD THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INCO ME IN QUESTION SHOULD BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION . M/S. KRISHNA LAND DEVELOPERS P. LTD. ITA NO.1057/M./2010 7 CONSEQUENTLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ALLOW THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 14. COMING TO GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES AS THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY . CONSEQUENT TO OUR DECISION IN GROUND NO.1, WE DIREC T THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW BOTH THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AS WELL AS THE C LAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4)(III). CONSEQUENTLY, WE SET ASIDE TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ALLOW THE GROUND NO.2 AN D 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. REGARDING GROUND NO.4, WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONE R (APPEALS) AS AT PARA-6.3/PAGE-9, HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 6.3 IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD TH AT THE A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING ANNUAL LETTING VALUE BY TAKIN G INTO CONSIDERATION THE NOTIONAL INTEREST ON DEPOSITS AND OTHER RELEVAN T FACTORS NARRATED IN THE ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 AND 4 ARE DISMI SSED AND ACTION OF THE A.O. IS UPHELD. 16. NOW IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOTIONAL INTEREST ON DE POSITS CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR DETERMINING THE ANNUAL LETTI NG VALUE, AS HELD BY THE FULL BENCH OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN MONI KUMA R SUBBA (SUPRA). IN ANY EVENT, AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THE INCOME IN QUESTION IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS , THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 23(1)(A) IS TO BE NECESSARILY DELETED. CONSEQUENTLY, WE SET ASI DE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ALLOW THE GROUND RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE. 17. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.8.2011 SD/- ASHA VIJAYRAGHAVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 12.8.2011 M/S. KRISHNA LAND DEVELOPERS P. LTD. ITA NO.1057/M./2010 8 COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE RESPONDENT; (3) THE CIT(A), MUMBAI, CONCERNED; (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 8.8.2011 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 9.8.2011 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 9.8.2011 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 9.8.2011 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 9.8.2011 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.8.2011 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 12.8.2011 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER