M/s. Thota Uthpannagala Marata Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Davanagere V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Davanagere

ITA 1290/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6427 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2020
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYADARSHI MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S V RAVISHANKAR
• Keywords: Business income; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 80P; 113; 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1290/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S THOTA UTHPANNAGALA MARATA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, TUMCOS BUILDING, APMC YARD, CHANNAGIRI, DAVANGERE DISTRICT. PAN AAAAT 3475 D VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.V RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI PRIYADARSHI MISHRA, ADDL.CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 18-01-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02-02-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST O RDER PASSED BY LEARNT CIT (A)-DAVANGERE FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2013-14 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS), DAVANGERE IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, PAGE 2 OF 11 ITA NO.1290/BANG/2019 WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, NATURAL JUSTICE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT SOCIETY'S CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES ITSELF TO BE ASSESSED TO AN INCOME OF RS. 62,02,872/- AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 11,2 5,150/-, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AS BAD IN LAW , SINCE THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME, WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPRECIA TING THAT THERE WAS A CLEAR NEXUS BETWEEN THE WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSI T OF DEPOSITS, TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE INTEREST EARNED WAS TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INTEREST PAID, AS ACCOUNTED BY THE APPELLANT, ON THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPRECIA TING THAT THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE REDUCED THE INTEREST PAID ON THE WITH DRAWALS AGAINST THE INTEREST EARNED, TO ARRIVE AT THE NET INCOME UNDER SECTION 57 OF THE ACT, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APP EAL MAY BE ALLOWED FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS, MA RKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS AND SUPPL YING AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS, SEEDS FERTILISERS EXCEPT T O ITS MEMBERS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 P ( 2) (A), (III) AND (VI) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THESE INCOME. THE LD.AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE WITHDREW SUM OF RS.10.60 CRORES FROM STATE BANK OF MYSORE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT AND MADE DEPOSIT OF RS. 10 CRORE WITH PRAGATI GRAMINA BANK. IT WAS NOTED THAT, RS.10 CROR E WAS LYING WITH PRAGATI GRAMINA BANK THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND N O AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN DURING THE YEAR. LD. AO WAS OF THE OP INION THAT INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.1,10,51,821/- EARNED FROM PRAGATI PAGE 3 OF 11 ITA NO.1290/BANG/2019 GRAMINA BANK IS NOT AN INCOME WHICH IS CHARGEABLE U NDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION BUT THE SAME WAS TO BE OFFERED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES. 3. THE ASSESSEE WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME REDUC ED THE INTEREST PAID TO THE STATE BANK WITH INTEREST RECEI VED FROM PRAGATI GRAMINA BANK. 4. THE LD.AO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF INTEREST THAT WAS PAID ON OVERD RAFT AND AMOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED FROM PRAGATI GRAMINA BA NK TOWARDS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,77,722/-, WHICH WAS REDUCED FROM PROFIT AND G AINS OF BUSINESS OF PROFESSION AND THE NET PROFIT COMPUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 P WAS RS.4,93 ,08,686/- AS AGAINST RS.5,43,86,408/- CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.AO ASSESSEE PREFERR ED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 6. LD.CIT(A) OF ON CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF ASSES SEE UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. AO. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 8. AT THE OUTSET, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, THE PRIMARY PLEA RAISED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT INTEREST EARNED FROM PRAGATI GRAMINA BANK CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . 9. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DRAWN SUM OF RS. 10.60 CRORES ON 30/03/2012 FROM STATE BANK OF MYSOR E OD ACCOUNT AND MAINTAIN THE DEPOSIT WITH PRAGATI GRAM IN A BANK TO PAGE 4 OF 11 ITA NO.1290/BANG/2019 THE TUNE OF RS. 10 CRORES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E CLOSING BALANCE OF PRAGATI GRAMINA BANK AS ON 31/03/2012 WA S RS.10,00,29,570/- AND CLOSING BALANCE OF THE ABOVE DEPOSIT AS ON 31/03/2013 WAS RS.10,99,76,208/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST EARNED ON THE ABOVE DEPOSIT DURING THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR WAS RS.1,10,51,821/- AND TDS OF RS.11,05,182/- WAS DEDUCTED. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, THERE IS A CLEAR NEXUS BE TWEEN THE WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSIT OF FUNDS FROM OD ACCOUNT TO PRAGATI GRAMINA BANK AND THAT THE INTEREST EARNED WAS ATTRI BUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PUR POSE OF DEPOSITING FUNDS FROM OD ACCOUNT INTO PRAGATI GRAMI NA BANK WAS TO MAINTAIN THE OD LIMIT OF RS. 25 CRORES ALLOW ED TO ASSESSEE WITH STATE BANK OF MYSORE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E OD BALANCE DURING MARCH 2012 WAS AROUND 14.33 CRORES AND THERE FORE IT WAS NECESSARY TO WITHDRAW FUNDS FROM OD ACCOUNT. HE SUB MITTED THAT THE INTEREST EARNED FROM OH PRAGATI GRAMINA BA NK WAS EQUAL AND TO THE INTEREST PAID ON OD ACCOUNT AND THEREFOR E IT IS TO BE NETTED OF AND TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. 10. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS REJECTED ASSESSEES CONTENTION FOR THE REASON THAT INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM PRAGATI GRAMINA BANK WAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS PRAGATI GRAMINA BANK IS NOT A CO-O PERATIVE SOCIETY HAS IMPLIED UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. 11. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST EARNED FR OM PRAGATI GRAMINA BANK WAS DERIVED FROM BUSINESS INCOME AS R S. 10 CRORE WAS TEMPORARILY DEPOSITED WITH THE GRAMINA BANK. TH E LD.AR PAGE 5 OF 11 ITA NO.1290/BANG/2019 PLACED RELIANCE ON DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF TUMKUR MERCHANTS SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIE TY LTD VS ITO REPORTED IN (2015) 55 TAXMANN.COM 447 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION. 12. ON THE CONTRARY LD.SR.DR RELIED ON ORDERS PASSE D BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. 13. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SI DES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 14. FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS WHAT EMERGES IS THAT S UM OF RS.10,99,76,208/- REPRESENTS INTEREST EARNED FROM A SHORT TERM DEPOSIT WITH PRAGATI GRAMINA BANK. PRESENT ASSESSEE IS A CO- OPERATIVE BANK THAT PROVIDES CREDIT FACILITIES TO I TS MEMBERS. THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY ASSESSEE BY PROVIDING CRE DIT FACILITY TO ITS MEMBERS. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT O F RS. 10.60 CRORES WAS WITHDRAWN IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE OD LI MIT OF RS.25 CRORES ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT THE LD.AO ESTIMATED THE INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO RS.10 CRORES AS ASSESSEE D EPOSITED RS.10 CRORES WITH PRAGATI GRAMINA BANK AND RS.60 LACS WAS USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES WHICH IS UNDISPUTED. 15. HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF TUMKUR MERCHANTS SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD VS ITO (SU PRA) WAS DECIDING IDENTICAL ISSUE. HONBLE COURT OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER: 7. THE WORD 'ATTRIBUTABLE' USED IN THE SAID SECTIO N IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE. THE APEX COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSI DER THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'ATTRIBUTABLE' AS SUPPOSED TO D ERIVE FROM ITS PAGE 6 OF 11 ITA NO.1290/BANG/2019 USE IN VARIOUS OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE IN T HE CASE OF CAMBAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CITI 19781 113 HR 84 (SC) AS UNDER: 'AS REGARDS THE ASPECT EMERGING FROM THE EXPRESSION 'ATTRIBUTABLE TO' OCCURRING IN THE PHRASE 'PROFITS AND GAINS ATTR IBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE SPECIFIED INDUSTRY (HERE GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY) ON WHICH THE LEARNED SOLICITOR-GENE RAL RELIED, IT WILL BE PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT THE LEGISLATURE. HAS DELI BERATELY USED THE EXPRESSION 'ATTRIBUTABLE TO' AND NOT THE EXPRESSION 'DERIVED FROM'. IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE EXPRESSION 'ATTRIBUT ABLE TO' IS CERTAINLY WIDER IN IMPORT THAN THE EXPRESSION 'DERI VED FROM'. HAD THE EXPRESSION 'DERIVED FROM' BEEN USED, IT COULD H AVE WITH SOME FORCE BEEN CONTENDED THAT A BALANCING CHARGE ARISIN G FROM THE SALE OF OLD MACHINERY AND BUILDINGS CANNOT HE REGARDED A S PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF G ENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT WHENEVER THE LEGISLATURE WANTED TO GIVE A REST RICTED MEANING IN THE MANNER SUGGESTED BY THE LEARNED SOLICITOR-GE NERAL, IT HAS USED THE EXPRESSION 'DERIVED FROM', AS, FOR INSTANC E, IN SECTION-80J. IN OUR VIEW, SINCE THE EXPRESSION OF WIDER IMPORT, NAMELY, 'ATTRIBUTABLE TO', HAS BEEN USED. THE LEGISLATURE I NTENDED TO COVER RECEIPTS FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY.' 8. THEREFORE. THE WORD 'ATTRIBUTABLE TO' IS CERTAIN LY WIDER IN IMPORT THAN THE EXPRESSION 'DERIVED FROM' WHENEVER THE LEG ISLATURE WANTED TO GIVE A RESTRICTED MEANING, THEY HAVE USED THE PAGE 7 OF 11 ITA NO.1290/BANG/2019 EXPRESSION 'DERIVED FROM'. THE EXPRESSION 'ATTRIBUT ABLE TO' BEING OF WIDER IMPORT, THE SAID EXPRESSION IS USED BY THE LE GISLATURE WHENEVER THEY INTENDED TO GATHER RECEIPTS FROM SOUR CES OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS. A COOPERATIVE S OCIETY WHICH IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILI TIES TO ITS MEMBERS, EARNS PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS BY PRO VIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. THE INTEREST INCOME SO D ERIVED OR THE CAPITAL, IF NOT IMMEDIATELY REQUIRED TO BE LENT TO THE MEMBERS, THEY CANNOT KEEP THE SAID AMOUNT IDLE. IF THEY DEPOSIT T HIS AMOUNT IN BANK SO AS TO EARN INTEREST, THE SAID INTEREST INCO ME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDI NG CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS ONLY. THE SOCIETY IS NOT CARRYING ON ANY SEPARATE BUSINESS FOR EARNING SUCH INTEREST INCOME. THE INCO ME SO DERIVED IS THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ATTR IBUTABLE TO THE ACTIVITY OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS BY A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND IS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. 9. IN THIS CONTEXT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIE TY LTD., ON WHICH RELIANCE IS PLACED, THE SUPREME COURT WAS DEA LING WITH A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE-COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, APART FROM PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO THE MEMBERS, WAS ALSO IN THE B USINESS OF MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY ITS MEMB ERS. THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM MARKETING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS WAS RETAINED IN MANY CASES. THE SAID RETAIN ED AMOUNT WHICH WAS PAYABLE TO ITS MEMBERS FROM WHOM PRODUCE WAS PAGE 8 OF 11 ITA NO.1290/BANG/2019 BOUGHT, WAS INVESTED IN A SHORT-TERM DEPOSIT/SECURI TY. SUCH AN AMOUNT WHICH WAS RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE - SOCIETY WAS A LIABILITY AND IT WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET ON THE LIABILITY SIDE. THEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT, SUCH INTEREST INCOME CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE EITHER TO THE ACTIVITY MENTIONED IN SE CTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT OR UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(111) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE IN THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE. THE APEX COURT HELD THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN TAXING THE INTEREST INCOME INDICATED A BOVE UNDER SECTION 56 OF THE ACT. FURTHER THEY MADE IT CLEAR T HAT THEY ARE CONFINING THE SAID JUDGMENT TO THE FACTS OF THAT CA SE. THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR, SUPREME COURT WAS NOT LAYING DOWN ANY LAW. 10. IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS INVES TED IN BANKS TO EARN INTEREST WAS NOT AN AMOUNT DUE TO ANY MEMBE RS. IT WAS NOT THE LIABILITY. IT WAS NOT SHOWN AS LIABILITY IN THEIR ACCOUNT. IN FACT THIS AMOUNT WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF PROFITS AND GAINS, WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR LENDIN G MONEY TO THE MEMBERS, AS THERE WERE NO TAKERS. THEREFORE THEY HA D DEPOSITED THE MONEY IN A BANK SO AS TO EARN INTEREST. THE SAI D INTEREST INCOME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND THEREFORE IT IS LIABLE TO HE DEDUCTED IN TERMS OF S ECTION 80P(1) OF THE ACT. IN FACT SIMILAR VIEW IS TAKEN BY THE ANDHRA PR ADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF (CIT VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPE RATIVE BANK LTD., [20110 200 TAXMAN 220/12 TAXMANN.COM 66. IN T HAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHO RITIES DENYING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY IT IS HEREBY SET ASIDE. THE SUB STANTIAL QUESTION PAGE 9 OF 11 ITA NO.1290/BANG/2019 OF IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINS T THE REVENUE. HENCE, WE PASS THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 16. IN THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE WE NOTE THAT A MOUNT INVESTED WITH PRAGATI GRAMINA BANK WAS NEITHER DUE TO ANY MEMBERS NOR A LIABILITY. THE SAID MONEY WAS TEMPORA RILY PARKED WITH PRAGATI GRAMINA BANK, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE OVERDRAFT LIMIT AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE WITH STATE BANK OF MYSO RE. 17. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF TUMKUR MERCHANTS SOUHARDA CREDIT CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD VS ITO (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT INTEREST EARNED ON SUCH DEPOSIT WOULD PARTAKE THE C HARACTER OF BUSINESS INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO CARRYING ON BUSINES S OF BANKING AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 P OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOW ED. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND FEBRUARY, 2021 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 2 ND FEBRUARY, 2021. /VMS/ PAGE 10 OF 11 ITA NO.1290/BANG/2019 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE PAGE 11 OF 11 ITA NO.1290/BANG/2019 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON ON DRAGON SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR -2-2021 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER -2-2021 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSEDAPPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. -2-2021 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS -2-2021 SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON -2-2021 SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE -2-2021 SR.PS 8. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON -- SR.PS 9. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK -2-2021 SR.PS 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 11. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 12. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 13. DRAFT DICTATION SHEETS ARE ATTACHED NO SR.PS