RAMNORD RESEARCH LABORATORIES P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CITA RG 11(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1739/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8010 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUM EET KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRUTI A P
• Keywords: Deemed owner of house property; Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN(J.M) & SHRI T.R.SOO D (A.M) ITA NO.1739/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) M/S. RAMNORD RESEARCH LABORATORIES PVT. LTD., 77, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018. PAN: AAACR 3428A (APPELLANT) VS. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE 11(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 20. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. SHRUTI A.P RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUMEET KUMAR ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, J.M, THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 1/12/2009 OF CIT(A)III, MUMBAI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS FOLLOWS: I. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT T HE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE TO EARN THE EXEMP T INCOME IN THE FORM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND DIVIDEND INCOME FROM INDIAN COMPANIES. II. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THAT I NTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE WITH APPELLANT COMPANY IN THE FORM O F INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSITS RECEIVED FROM CITIBANK T AT THE T IME OF LEASING OUT THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT WORLI IN THE YEAR 1994-95 WHIC H WAS UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSE IN THE SAME YEAR. THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND DIVIDEND INCOME HAS ARISEN FROM THE ABOVE INVESTMEN TS. AS A RESULT THE INTEREST EXPENSES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EARNIN G THE DIVIDEND INCOME AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. III. YOUR APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE S ECURED AND UNSECURED LOANS AVAILED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS ON 31/3/2 006 IS UTILIZED ITA NO.1739/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 2 FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE AND THE AO HAS NOT PROVED NEXUS FOR UTILIZATION OF SUCH INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR PURC HASE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES ON WHICH LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND DIVI DEND INCOME IS RECEIVED. IV. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPE LLANT COMPANY DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED U NDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALIN G IN CINEMATOGRAPHIC AND OTHER FILMS, LEAVE AND LICENSING OF EQUIPMENTS, INV ESTMENT AND FINANCE ACTIVITIES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSE SSEE HAS CLAIMED FOLLOWING EXEMPT INCOME: (A) DIVIDEND INCOME RS. 6,61,603/- RECEIVED FROM I NDIAN COMPANIES AND THEREFORE, IS EXEMPT U/S. 10(34) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. (THE ACT) (B) LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES AMOUN TING TO RS. 5,884,466/- IS EXEMPT U/S. 10(38) OF THE ACT SINCE ON SUCH SALE TRANSACTIONS IS CHARGEABLE TO SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX. THE A.O DISALLOWED INTEREST EXPENSES AND INDIRECT EXPENSES AS PER RULE 8D U/S. 14A OF THE ACT OF RS. 14,76,175/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE INVESTM ENT IN SHARES AND SECURITIES ON WHICH EXEMPT INCOME IS EARNED WAS MAI NLY FUNDED FROM THE INTEREST FREE SECURITIES DEPOSIT RECEIVED FROM THE CITIBANK AT THE TIME OF LEASING OUT THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT WORLI. THE SA ID DEPOSIT WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR 1994-95. DURING THE YEAR 1994-95 T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD RECEIVED SECURITY DEPOSIT AMOUNT TO RS. 7.25 CR ORES AND AGAINST THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAME YEAR HAS INCREASED FROM RS.24,57,000/- TO RS. 4,24,45,203/-. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE FROM THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AV AILABLE WITH THE COMPANY. THE AO HOWEVER, APPLYING THE PROVISIONS O F SEC.14-A OF THE ACT R.W.RULE 8-D OF THE IT RULES, 1962, MADE A DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.15,90,951 HOLDING THAT THEY WERE EXPENSES INCURRED TO EARN IN COME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. ITA NO.1739/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 3 3. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) HOWEVER, H ELD AS FOLLOWS: 2.2 FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE CONSIDERED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT IS AN ARTIFICIAL JUDICIAL PERSON, WHICH INDICATES THAT THE MATTER OF RELATED EXPENSE IS NOT LIMITED ONLY TO I NTEREST EXPENSE BUT ALSO UNDER OTHER HEADS OF EXPENSES. TIME AND EFFOR TS OF APPELLANTS DIRECTORS/OFFICERS/STAFF IN THE MANAGEMENT AND INVE STMENT OF SUCH FUNDS WOULD HAVE BEEN SPENT/INCURRED. IT IS THEREF ORE, INCORRECT TO STATE THAT THERE ARE NO EXPENSES WHICH PERTAIN TO THE EXEMPT INCOME. MOREOVER, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST ( 121 I TD 318) DELHI, SB HAS HELD THAT EVEN WHEN NO EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN E ARNED OR RECEIVED IN THE YEAR, DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S. 14A CAN BE MADE. FURTHERMORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT, MUMBAI, SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMEN T PVT. LTD. (2005) 117 ITD 169(MUM) (SB), THE APPELLANTS EXPENDITURE IS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED IN RESPECT OF EXEMPT INCOME AS PER SECTI ON 14A R.W. RULE 8D. THE AO IS THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO RE-VERIFY THE TOTAL EXEMPT INCOME IN THE APPELLANTS CASE AND WORK OUT THE DISALLOWAB LE EXPENSES AS PER RULE 8D AND ITS SUB-RULES. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSE E HAS RAISED GROUND NO.1 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.626 OF 2010 IN THE C ASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG.CO.LTD. MUMBAI. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX,RANGE 10(2), MUMBAI & ANR. AND W.P. 758/10 GODREJ & BOYCE MFG.CO.LTD. MUMBAI. VS.DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 10( 2), MUMBAI & ORS. BY JUDGMENT DATED 12-8-2010 HAS DEALT WITH THE DISA LLOWANCE THAT CAN BE MADE U/S.14-A OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE COURT ALSO D EALT WITH THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DAGA C APITAL MANAGEMENT PVT.LTD. 117 ITD 169 (MUM) (SB) AND HAS LAID DOWN T HE FOLLOWING PROPOSITION: I) DIVIDEND INCOME AND INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUNDS FAL LING WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 10(33) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, AS WAS A PPLICABLE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN COMPUTING THE TOT AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESP ECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM ITA NO.1739/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 4 PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT, BY VIRTUE O F THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(1); II) THE PAYMENT BY A DOMESTIC COMPANY UNDER SECTION 115O(1) OF ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX ON PROFITS DECLARED, DISTRIBUTED OR PAID IS A CHARGE ON A COMPONENT OF THE PROFITS OF THE COMPANY. THE COMPAN Y IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX ON ITS PROFITS AS A DISTINCT TAXABLE ENTITY AND IT PAYS TAX IN DISCHA RGE OF ITS OWN LIABILITY AND NOT ON BEHALF OF OR AS AN AGENT FOR ITS SHAREHOLDER S. IN THE HANDS OF THE SHAREHOLDER AS THE RECIPIENT OF DIVIDEND, INCOME BY WAY OF DIVIDEND DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME BY VIRTUE OF THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 10(33). INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUNDS STANDS ON THE SAME BASIS; III)THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF S ECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID; IV)THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULE S AS INSERTED BY THE INCOME TAX (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES 2008 ARE NOT ULT RA VIRES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A, MORE PARTICULARLY SUB SECTION (2) A ND DO NOT OFFEND ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION; V) THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULE S WHICH HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED WITH EFFECT FROM 24 MARCH 2008 SHALL APPLY WITH EFFECT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09; VI)EVEN PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHEN RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 14A. FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS DUTY BOUND TO DETERMINE THE EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED I N RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST ADOPT A REASONABLE BASIS OR METHOD CON SISTENT WITH ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AFTER FURNISHING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ALL GERMANE MATERIAL ON TH E RECORD; VII)THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 SHA LL STAND REMANDED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHA LL DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE (DIRECT O R INDIRECT) IN RELATION TO DIVIDEND INCOME / INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH DO ES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 14A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ADOPT A REASONABLE BASIS FOR EFFECTING THE APPO RTIONMENT. WHILE MAKING THAT DETERMINATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF PRODUCING ITS ACCOUNTS AND RELEV ANT OR GERMANE MATERIAL HAVING A BEARING ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NO.1739/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 5 6. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONB LE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A HAS TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. RULE 8D SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED AND THE AO HAS TO ADO PT A REASONABLE BASIS OR METHOD CONSISTENT WITH ALL RELEVANT FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES AND AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ALL GERMANE MATERIAL ON THE RECORD. WE, THEREFORE, REMIT THE I SSUE TO THE A.O FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AS STATED ABOVE. 7. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS FOLL OWS: I. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF PART OF THE LICENCE FEES PAID AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,70,415/- FOR A PREMISE AT JOGESHWARI, USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE, A BELIEF THAT CERTAIN PO RTION OF THE PREMISE WAS VACANT DURING THE YEAR. II) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) HAS FAILED TO UNDERSTA ND THAT THE PREMISE AT JOGESHWARI, WHICH WAS ACQUIRED ON LEASE, WAS NOT REMAINED VACANT DURING THE YEAR. INSTEAD, APPELLANT OWNED PREMISE S OF 3 ( THREE AND MEZZANINE FLOOR) FLOORS AT WORLI WHICH HAS BEEN LET OUT TO CITIBANK, A PORTION OF IT REMAINED VACANT DURING TH E WHOLE YEAR HAS BEEN CONSIDERED DEEM LET OUT BY APPELLANT AND ACCOR DINGLY FFERED FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. III. YOUR APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF LICENCE FEES OF RS. 8,70,415/- ON A RENTAL PREMISE AT JOGES HWARI, USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE BE DELETED. 8. THE ASSESSEE OWNED PREMISES AT WORLI CONSISTING OF 3 FLOORS( THREE AND MEZZANINE FLOOR). THE ASSESSEE HAD LEASED OUT MAJOR PORTION OF THIS PREMISES TO M/S. CITIBANK. THE TOTAL AREA OF THIS PREMISES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 26,500 SQ.FT. OUT OF THE ABOVE AREA, AN AREA OF 9500 SQ. FT. REMAINED VACANT. WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME THE INCOME FROM LETTING ITA NO.1739/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 6 OUT OF THE PROPERTY TO M/S. CITIBANK WAS OFFERED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BY OFFERING TO TAX, THE ACTUAL LICENCE FEE RECEIVED ON LETTING, UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPE RTY. IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING PORTION THAT WAS VACANT THE ASSESSEE TREA TED THE SAME AS OWN OCCUPATION AND OFFERED TO TAX NOTIONAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE COMPUTATION FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IN THIS REGARD IS AS FOLLOWS: INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY: A) PART OF THE PROPERTY LET OUT DURING THE WHOLE YE AR: LICENCE FEE RECEIVED 23,587,500 LESS:MUNICIPAL TAXES PAID 101,663 NET ANNUAL VALUE 23,485,837 LESS: DEDUCTIONS U/S. 24(A)@ 30% 7,045,751 16,440,086 B) PART OF THE PROPERTY REMAIN VACANT DURING WHOLE YEAR, HENCE CONSIDERED TO BE DEEMED LET OUT PROPERTY: GROSS ANNUAL VALUE 18,875 LESS: MUNICIPAL TAXES PAID 2,725 NET ANNUAL VALUE 16,150 LESS: DEDUCTION U/S.24(A) @ 30% 4,845 11,305 16,451,3 91 11,665,209 9. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ANOTHER PREMISES AT 2, PR ABHAT NAGAR, PATEL ESTATE ROAD, JOGESHWARI (WEST) ON LEAVE AND LICENCE UNDER AN AGREEMENT DATED 4/9/2004 FROM M/S. EMPRESS TIN FACTORY PVT. L TD. THE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN ON LEASE MEASURING 18400 SQ. FT. CONSISTING O F GROUND AND TWO UPPER FLOORS. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID LEAVE AND LICENCE CH ARGES OF RS. 24,28,000/- TO M/S. EMPRESS TIN FACTORY PVT. LTD.. THE SAID S UM WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. 10. THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT A PORTION OF THE P REMISES TAKEN ON RENT FROM M/S. EMPRESS TIN FACTORY PVT. LTD. REMAINED VA CANT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED PROPORT IONATE LICENCE FEE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE P&L ACCOUNT ON THE GROU ND THAT THE RENT PAID FOR THE PREMISES HAD NOT BEEN USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1739/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 7 11. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE AO HAD NOT UNDERSTOOD THE FACTS CORRECTLY AND THAT NO PART OF THE JOGESHW ARI PREMISES TAKEN ON RENT REMAINED VACANT AND THAT IT WAS ONLY A PORTION OF T HE WORLI PROPERTY REMAINED VACANT AND THAT THE ENTIRE JOGESHWARI PREM ISES HAD BEEN USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREF ORE, THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE DELETED. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER , WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING OR CONSIDERING THIS SUBMISSION CONFIRM ED THE ORDER OF THE AO. SHE PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE PORTION OF THE JOGESHWARI PROPERTY TAKEN ON RENT REMAINED VACANT. 12. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESS EE HAS RAISED GROUND NO.2 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE HAVE A LSO PERUSED THE LEAVE AND LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. EMPRESS TIN FACTORY PVT. LTD. IN RESPECT OF THE JOGESHWARI PROPERTY. I T IS CLEAR FROM THIS AGREEMENT THAT THE AREA TAKEN ON LEAVE AND LICENCE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 18500 SQ.FT. IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF THE WORLI PROPERTY OWNED BY IT TREATING PART OF IT AS LET OUT AND PART OF IT AS IN OWN OCCUPATION. THE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIMA FACIE APPEARS TO BE CORRECT. SINCE NEITHER THE AO NOR THE CIT(A) HAD C ONSIDERED THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE, WE FEEL IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ON RE CORD. THE AO WILL AFFORD OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH KEEPING IN MIND THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE. ITA NO.1739/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 8 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 23 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2011. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED. 23RD MARCH, 2011 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.RD BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM. ITA NO.1739/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 9 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 15/3/2011 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 16/3/2011 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/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