Bangalore Truf Club Limited, Bengaluru V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 1848/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8681 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-12-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 40(a)(ia); 201(1); 201; 191; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1848 & 1850/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 13 & 2015-15 BANGALORE TURF CLUB LTD., POST BOX NO.5038, #52, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. PAN AABCB 6217 G VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, (ITA 1848) CIRCLE-2(1)(1), THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, (ITA 1850) CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT B Y : SHRI PADAMCHAND KHINCHA, C.A RESPONDENT BY : MS. NEERA MALHOTRA, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 10 - 12 - 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 - 12 - 2020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT APPEALS HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGA INST SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 31/07/2019 PASSED BY LD.CIT (A)-1, BAN GALORE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 AND 2014-15. 2.BOTH SIDES SUBMIT THAT THE ISSUE ALLEGED FOR CONS IDERATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND ON IDENTICAL FACTS. FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE REPRODUCE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AS UNDER: 1. GENERAL GROUND 1.1. THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C IRCLE 2(1)(1), BANGALORE (`AO') HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER UND ER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (`THE ACT') IN THE MANNER PASSED BY HIM AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(APPEALS)-1 (`CIT(A) ') HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAID ORDER. THE SAID ORDER BEING BAD IN LAW IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. GROUNDS RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION40(A) (IA) 2.1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF STAKE MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS. 34,15,30 ,436 UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THA T NO TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 194BB OR 194B OF THE ACT. 2.2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATI NG THAT SECTION 194BB DOES NOT COVER STAKE MONEY PAID TO HORSE OWNERS; A LEGAL PROPOSITION ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD IN CIRCULAR NO 240 DATED 17.0 5.1978. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED AO AND CONFIRMED B Y LEARNED CIT(A) IS THEREFORE AGAINST THE MANDATE OF A BINDING CIRCU LAR. 2.3. ASSUMING AND WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT THE DISALL OWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS CORRECT, SUCH DISALLOWANCE MUST BE RES TRICTED TO 30% AS THE AMENDMENT MADE BY FINANCE ACT (NO.2), 2014 WITH EFF ECT FROM 01.04.2015 IS REMEDIAL IN NATURE AND HENCE RETROSPECTIVE IN ITS A PPLICABILITY. 3. GROUNDS RELATING TO APPLICABILITY OF A BINDING JUDG MENT WHICH HAS BEEN STAYED. 3.1 THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE D ECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN BANGALORE TURF CLUB V U01 (2014) 228 TAXMAN 234 WHEREIN IT HAS HELD THAT THE PAYMENT OF STAKE MONEY IS NEITHER COVERED UNDER SECTION 194BB NOR UNDER SECTI ON 194B OF THE ACT. 3.2. THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING T HAT A REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT EMPOWER THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO DISREGARD A BINDING JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECIS ION. 3.3. ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW APPLICABLE, THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS BINDI NG ON THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE OF STAKE MONEY UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS TO BE DELETED. 3.4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATI NG THE FACT THAT THE STAY OF OPERATION OF A DECISION BY AN INTERIM ORDER DOES NO T WIPE OUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE DECISION AND IT DOES NOT UNDERMINE THE AUTHORIT Y OF A DECISION AS A PRECEDENT. 3.5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RELYING ON THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 194B READ WITH SECTION 201FOR THE AY 2006-07 TO AY 2015-16 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS PENDING BEFO RE THE DIVISION BENCH OF HIGH COURT AND THE HIGH COURT HAS IMPLICITLY DIRECT ED THAT NO ORDER CONNECTED THERETO BE IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT THE LEAVE OF THE COURT. 3.6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATI NG THE FACT THAT THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT WAS PASSED ON 07.12.2016, W HICH IS AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12. SUCH BEING THE CASE, THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE OF KARNATAKA WHICH HAS CATEGOR ICALLY HELD THAT THERE IS NO LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAXES ON STAKE MONE Y IS EXPLICITLY APPLICABLE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12. 4. LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234B AND 234C 4.1. THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST U NDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE AND LAW APPLICABLE, INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C IS NOT LEVIABLE. THE APPELLANT DENIES ITS LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST UNDE R SECTION 234B AND 234C. 5. PRAYER 5.1, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS TO BE ADDUCED A T THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE ORDER UNDER SECTION143(3) PASSED BY THE AO BE QUASHED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE A) DISALLOWANCE OF STAKE MONEY PAID TO HORSE OWNERS OF RS 34,15,30,436/- BE DELETED B) INTEREST LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234B AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,93,70,932 BE DELETED. C) INTEREST LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234C AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,440 BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT PRAYS ACCORDINGLY. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: 2.1ASSESSEE IS COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF C ONDUCTING HORSE RACES. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY LD.AO THAT ASS ESSEE WOULD COLLECT TICKET MONEY FROM ACROSS THE COUNTERS AND D ISBURSE THE MONEY TO WINNERS IMMEDIATELY IT IS ALSO BEEN OBSERV ED BY LD.AO THAT ASSESSEE MAINTAINS TO SET OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS VIZ PRIMARY AND SECONDARY, AND THE FINANCIALS ARE PREPARED AS PER T HE PRIMARY BOOKS. 2.2LD.AO NOTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 -13 ASSESSEE COLLECTED TOTAL SUM OF RS.1,354.44 CRORES THROUGH C OUNTERS AND THE REVENUE RECOGNISED AND DECLARED BY ASSESSEE WAS AT 12.75% TREATING THEM AS CLUB, AMOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.173.5 9 CRORES WHICH WAS A PART OF PRIMARY BOOKS. 2.3LD.AO NOTED THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1180.8 5 CRORES WAS DISBURSED AS PRISE MONEY TO THE BETTING INDIVIDUAL (PARTNERS). LD.AO ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE DOES NOT MAINTAIN THE NAME ADDRESS AND PAN OF WINNING PERSONS TO WHOM THE PRIZE MONEY WERE DISBURSED OWING TO ITS VOLUME. THE DETAILS SUCH AS TICKET NO. , TICKET AMOUNT AND PRIZE MONEY DISBURSED ARE MAINTAINED IN THE SEC ONDARY BOOK WHICH IS NOT ROOTED THROUGH THE REGULAR BOOKS OF AC COUNTS. THE 2.4LD.AO WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT PRIZE MONEY AMOUNT UPTO RS. 5000 ARE DISBURSED WITHOUT TDS AND TDS IS DEDUCTED ONLY ON PRIZE MONEY OVER RS.5000 TO PUNTERS. 2.5LD.AO NOTED THAT OUT OF THE REVENUE RECOGNISED D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION (173.59 CRORES) IS ASSESSEE AMO NG OTHER EXPENDITURE HAD DISBURSED STAKE MONEY AND CUPS AMOU NTING TO RS.34,15,30,436/- TO THE HORSE OWNERS WITHOUT DEDUC TING TDS AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 194 BB. 2.6LD.AO CALLED UPON ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE STAKE M ONEY AND CUPS AMOUNTING TO RS.35,15,30,436/- DISBURSED TO HORSE O WNERS WITHOUT DEDUCTING TDS AND CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE IN P&L ACC OUNT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN A WRIT PETITION FILED BY ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTH ERS BY JUDGMENT DATED 26/09/2014 OBSERVED THAT CIRCULAR NO.240 DATE D 17/05/1978 ISSUED BY CBDT IN RESPECT OF SECTION 194 BB WOULD NOT APPLY TO STAKE MONEY IS AND SUCH STAKE MONIES A RE NOT REGARDED AS WINNING FROM HORSE RACES OR RACES, BUT CONSTITUTE PRIZE- MONEY WHICH THE OWNER OF A RACE HORSE IS PROCEEDS O N ACCOUNT OF HIS HORSE WINNING A POSITION IN THE RACE. IT WAS AL SO SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, WITH REGARD TO APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194B HELD THAT THE STAKE MONE Y OR PRIZE MONEY PAID BY RACE CLUBS TO HORSE OWNERS WOULD NOT ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION. 2.7LD.AO HOWEVER DISALLOWED THE SUM OF RS.35,15,30, 436/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) FOR THE REASON THAT REVENUE SOUGHT REVIEW PETITION BEFORE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AGAINST THE DECISION DATED 26/09/2014. 3.AGGRIEVED BY DISALLOWANCE MADE BY LD.AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A). 3.1LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.0 HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS, IT IS OBSERVED T HAT THE ONLY ISSUE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF PRIZE MONEY / STAKE MONEY PAID TO THE WI NNING HORSE OWNERS. THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE SINGLE JU DGE ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (SUPRA), TO SAY THAT WITHHO LDING TAX ON THE PRICE MONEY PAID TO WINNING HORSE OWNER IS N OT APPLICABLE. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS RELIED ON THE APPEA L FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HON 'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, HAVING NOT ACCEPTED THE JUDGE MENT OF THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COUR T SUPRA. HOWEVER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SIN GLE JUDGE OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SUPRA, WAS DISPOS ED BY VIDE INTERIM ORDER WA 60/2015 DATED 07-12-2016, WHE REIN, THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT: 7. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDG E IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT SO FAR AS INTERPRETATION OF THE RESPECTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT FOR TDS, SHALL REMAIN STAYED... THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IS REPRODUCED SUPRA IN PARA 9 OF THIS ORDER. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER HAS NOT REACHED ANY FINALITY AND THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS GIVEN LIBERTY TO THE AO TO TAKE A DECISIO N IN THE MATTER BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 201 OF THE ACT. THESE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 201 HAVE DIRECT BEARING ON THE ALL OWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 40(A)( IA) OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE REASONING OF THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT PAID AS PRIZE MONEY / S TAKE MONEY TO THE HORSE OWNERS UPON HIS HORSE WINNING THE RACE , IS NOTHING BUT IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE PRICE MONEY WON BY THE PUNTERS BY BUYING THE TICKETS AT THE RACE COURSE. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DISTURB THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THI S REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL, CONSISTING OF VARIOUS GROU NDS RAISED IN THIS REGARD, IS DISMISSED. 4.AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 4.1LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD.SINGLE JUDGE OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BY DECISION DATED 26/09/2014, REVENUE PREFERRED A WRIT APPEAL BEING W A-60/2015, BEFORE A DIVISION BENCH FILED ON 07/01/2015. HONBL E COURT PASSED AN INTERIM ORDER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4. ON THE ASPECTS OF THE AMOUNTS OF TDS TO BE DEDU CTED TOWARDS STAKE MONEY BY THE CLUB, WE FIND THAT AS UP TILL NO W IN PAST, DEDUCTION HAS NOT BEEN MADE AND THE QUESTION IS TO BE CONSIDE RED ON THE ASPECTS OF DEDUCTION BY THE CLUB WHILE MAKING PAYMENT OF TH E STATE MONEY. IT APPEARS TO US THAT, THE PAYEE OF THE STAKE MONEY SH OULD FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THIS COURT THAT AS AND WHEN IT IS TO BE DIRECTED BY THE COURT, THE AMOUNT OF TDS SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITH TH E CLUB FOR ENABLING THE CLUB TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT WITH THE REVENUE/INC OME TAX DEPARTMENT. 5. AS A MATTER MAY REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED DE NOV O BY THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO STAY THE OBSE RVATIONS MADE BY THE LD.SINGLE JUDGE SO FAR AS THEY RELATE TO THE OB LIGATIONS OF THE CLUB TO DEDUCT TDS OR AS TO WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF TD S WOULD BE APPLICABLE OR NOT. BUT, OF COURSE, EVEN IF THE AUTH ORITY AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES PASSES THE APPROPRIATE ORDER, THE SAME SHOU LD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT LEAVE OF THIS COURT. 6. INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA IN WRIT APPEA L FILED BY THE REVENUE: ON 07/12/2016, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HAS PASSED AN INTERIM ORDER WITH REGARD TO THE WRIT APP EAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT (WA 60/2015). COPY OF THE SAID INTER IM ORDER IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE 2. 7. AFTER ADMITTING THE WRIT APPEALS FILED BY THE DE PARTMENT, THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AT PARA 4 OF THE INTERIM ORDER HELD AS UNDER. '4. ON THE ASPECTS OF THE AMOUNT OF TDS TO BE DEDUC TED TOWARDS STAKE MONEY BY THE CLUB, WE FIND THAT AS UP TILL NOW IN P AST, DEDUCTION HAS NOT BEEN MADE AND THE QUESTION IS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE ASPECTS OF DEDUCTION BY THE CLUB WHILE MAKING PAYMENT OF THE S TAKE MONEY. IT APPEARS TO US THAT, THE PAYEE OF THE STAKE MONEY SH OULD FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THIS COURT THAT AS AND WHEN IT IS SO DIRECTED BY THE COURT, THE AMOUNT OF TDS SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITH TH E CLUB FOR ENABLING THE CLUB TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT WITH THE REVENUE/INC OME TAX DEPARTMENT.' 8. AT PARA 5 OF THE INTERIM ORDER ON WRIT APPEAL FI LED BY THE DEPARTMENT (WA 60/2015), THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LE ARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN BANGALORE TURF CLUB LTD V U01 (2014) 228 T AXMAN 234 ON THE OBLIGATION OF THE APPELLANT TO DEDUCT TDS OR WHETHER TDS PROVISIONS WOULD BE APPLICABLE OR NOT WAS STAYED AN D IT WAS HELD AS UNDER. '5. AS THE MATTER MAY REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED DEN OVO BY THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO STA Y THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE SO FAR AS THEY REL ATE TO THE OBLIGATION OF THE CLUB TO DEDUCT TDS OR AS TO WHETH ER THE PROVISIONS OF TDS WOULD BE APPLICABLE OR NOT. BUT, OF COURSE, EVE N IF THE AUTHORITY AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES PASSES THE APPROPRIATE OR DER, THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT LEAVE OF THIS COU RT.' 9. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, BY VIDE INTERIM ORDER WA 60/2015 DATED 07-12-2016 HELD AS UNDER: 6. 'IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE ARE INCLINED TO PASS THV FOLLOWING INTERIM ORDER: THE MATTER SHALL STAND RESTORED TO THE AUTHORITY AT THE STAGE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THE CLUB-ORIGINAL RESPECTIVE PETITIONER SHALL BE A T LIBERTY TO FILE A REPLY/ ADDITIONAL REPLY IF IT SO DESIRES. ... 7. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE I N THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT SO FAR AS INTERPRETATION OF THE R ESPECTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT FOR TDS, SHALL REMAIN STAYED. 8. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED AND DIRECTED THAT THE CONCE RNED AUTHORITY OR THE APPROPRIATE OFFICER AFTER THE REPLY/ADDITIONAL REPL Y IS SUBMITTED BY THE ORIGINAL PETITIONER, CLUB OR THE PRIVATE RESPON DENT/ORIGINAL PETITIONER AS THE CASE MAY BE SHALL GIVE OPPORTUNIT Y OF HEARING TO THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND SHALL PASS A FRESH ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND SHALL DECIDE AS TO WHETHER THE REQUIREMENT OF TDS IS APPLICABLE TO THE STAKE MONEY BEING PAID BY THE CLU B TO THE PERSON CONCERNED WHO ARE OWNERS OF THE HORSE PARTICIPATING IN THE RACE OR NOT. 9. THE AFORESAID EXERCISE SHALL BE COMPLETED PREFERABL Y WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE RECEIPT OF CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT. HOWEVER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT, THE ORDER WHIC H MAY BE PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY OR THE APPROPRIATE OFFICER SHALL N OT BE IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT EXPRESS LEAVE OF THIS COURT' 10. UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS, AT THE TIME WHEN STAKE MONEY IS TO BE PAID BY THE ORIGINAL PETITIONER-CLUB TO THE PERSON CONCERNE D, THE DEDUCTION SHALL NOT BE MADE UNDER THE HEAD OF TDS IF THE OWNE R OF THE HORSE/PERSON CONCERNED FILES AN UNDERTAKING BEFORE THIS COURT THAT HE SHALL RE-DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT WITH THE CLUB WITH T HE INTEREST CHARGEABLE AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT WITHIN A PERIO D OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THIS COURT SO DIRECTS TO DEP OSIT THE AMOUNT, SO AS TO ENABLE THE CLUB TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT OF T DS WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. UPON THE COPY OF THE UNDERTA KING PRODUCED BY THE OWNER OF THE HORSE/PERSON CONCERNED, THE PET ITIONERS CLUB SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PAY THE AMOUNT WITHOUT TDS, BUT SEPARATE CALCULATION AND RECORD SHALL BE MAINTAINED OF THE A MOUNT OF TDS NOT DEDUCTED PURSUANT TO THIS ORDER. 11. IT IS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT PENDING PRESENT PROCEEDIN GS, IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE PERSON CONCERNED/OWNER OF THE HORSE TO SHOW THE INCOME OF STAKE MONEY RECEIVED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE PENDENCY OF THESE PROCE EDINGS SHALL NOT OPERATE AS A BAR IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS BEFORE THE RESPECTIVE AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, IT IS OBSERVED T HAT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IF ANY PASSED IN RESPECT OF ANY OW NER OF THE HORSE/PERSON CONCERNED SHALL BE PLACED ON RECORD WH ICH MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT AT THE TIME WHEN FINAL ORDE R IS TO BE PASSED ON THE ASPECTS OF RE-DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT O F TDS OR OTHERWISE AS OBSERVED EARLIER. 12. OFFICE TO PLACE THE MATTER UPON A NOTE FILED BY EIT HER SIDE DECLARING THAT THE ORDER IS PASSED BY THE APPROPRIA TE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. 13. IT IS OBSERVED AND DIRECTED THAT THE APPROPRIATE AU THORITY SHALL INDEPENDENTLY CONSIDER THE MATTER WITHOUT BEING IN ANY MANNER INFLUENCED BY ANY OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE L EARNED SINGLE JUDGE OR THE EARLIER ORDER PASSED BY IT. THE AUTHORITY SHALL CONSIDER THE MATTER INDEPENDENTLY IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW. 4.2LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT STAYED THE OPERATION OF ORDER DATED 26/09/2014 AND DIRECTED AU THORITIES BELOW NOT TO RECOVER ANY DEMAND UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A), FOR RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH ALSO INCLUDED ASSES SMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN ASSESSEES CASE, WITHOUT THE LEAVE OF HONBLE COURT. HONBLE COURT VIDE PARA 8 ALSO DIRECTED TO DECIDE WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF TDS ARE APPLICABLE TO STAKE MONEY BEI NG PAID TO THE CLUB TO THE PERSON CONCERNED WHO ARE OWNERS OF HORS E PARTICIPATING IN THE RACE. 4.3ON MERITS LD.AR PLACED RELIANCE ON FOLLOWING DEC ISIONS AND CBDT CIRCULARS: EXTRACT FROM CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 240 DATED 17/05/1978 EXTRACT FROM FINANCE MINISTERS SPEECH, MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING PROVISIONS OF FINANCE BILL 2001 DATED 28 /02/2001 PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 194B W.E.F. 01/06/2 001 CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT NO. 14/2001 DATED 09/11/201 1 EXPLAINING PROVISIONS OF FINANCE BILL 2001 DECISION OF HYDRABAD TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ACIT VS HY DRABAD RACE CLUB IN ITA NO. 319-323/HYD/2015 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10 TO 2013-14 BY ORDER DATED 04/09/2015 DECISION OF CHENNAI TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF MADRAS RACE CLUB VS DCIT IN ITA NO. 646-657/MDS/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2007-08 TO 2012-13 BY ORDER DATED 28/10/2015 DECISION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ROYAL WESTER N TURF CLUB LTD VS ACIT REPORTED IN (2019) 108 TAXMANN.COM 91 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 4.4LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ROYAL WESTERN TURF CLUB LTD VS ACIT (SUPRA) IN RECENT A JUDGMENT FOLLOWED THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD.SINGLE JUDGE OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (SUPRA) HELD THAT, STAKE MONIES ARE NOT LIABLE TO TDS UNDER SECTION 194B OF THE ACT . 5.ON THE CONTRARY, LD.CIT DR PLACING RELIANCE ON OR DERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW SUBMITTED THAT, STEAK MONIES FORM S PART OF THE WORDS CARD GAMES AND OTHER GAMES OF ANY SORT WHICH HAS BEEN INSERTED IN SECTION 194B OF THE ACT W.E.F. 01/06/20 01. SHE SUBMITTED THAT HORSE RACING INCOME COMES UNDER THE AMBIT OF OTHER GAMES OF ANY SORT AND THEREFORE TDS IS NECESSARILY TO BE DEDUCTED ON STAKE MONEY PAID BY CLUB TO HORSE OWNERS. 6.WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SIDE S IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 6.1ALL THE APPREHENSIONS RAISED BY LEARNT CIT DR HA S BEEN DEALT WITH BY MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ROYAL WESTERN TURF CLUB LTD VS ACIT (SUPRA) AS UNDER: 5. BEFORE US, THE FIRST ARGUMENT PUT FORTH BY THE LEA RNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SECTION 194BB OF THE ACT WAS BROUGHT IN THE STATUTE BY FINANCE ACT, 1978 W.E.F. 01.04.1978, AND IT APPL IES TO A PERSON WHO HAS LICENSE FOR HORSE RACING AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING TO ANY PERSON ANY INCOME BY WAY OF WINNING FROM HORSE RACES. A CI RCULAR WAS ISSUED BY THE CBDT EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS OF THE FINANCE A CT, 1978 I.E. CIRCULAR NO. 240 DATED 17.05.1978. IN PARA 25.1.6 OF THE SAI D CIRCULAR, IT IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF TDS SH ALL NOT APPLY TO INCOME BY WAY OF 'STAKE MONEY' AS THE TERM 'STAKE MONEY' CONS TITUTE THE PRIZE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE OWNERS OF THE HORSE ON ACCOUNT OF T HE FACT THAT THE HORSE WINS THE RACE OR COMES SECOND OR THIRD, AS THE CASE MAY BE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE CBDT CIRCULARS ARE BINDING ON TH E DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES, AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT I N THE CASES OF K.P. VERGHESE V. ITO [1981] 7 TAXMAN 13/131 ITR 597 AND ELLERMAN LINES LTD. V. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 913. IN FACT, THE VERY SAME CI RCULAR NO. 240 DATED 17.05.1978 CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE MAD RAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. INVESTMENT TRUST OF INDIA LTD. [2003 ] 127 TAXMAN 168/264 ITR 506 AND IT WAS HELD TO BE BINDING ON THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT DATED 17.05.1978 (SUPRA), WHICH SPECIFICALLY PROVID ES THAT NO TDS IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF STAKE MONEY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT RIGHT IN TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS AN 'ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT' FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 201(1) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURT HER POINTED OUT THAT WHAT CANNOT BE DONE DIRECTLY, CANNOT BE DONE INDIRECTLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BEING BOUND BY THE CBDT CIRCULAR, CANNOT HOLD THE A SSESSEE LIABLE TO TDS BY BRINGING THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF SECTI ON 194B OF THE ACT, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED IN LAW. IN V.M. SALGAOCAR & BROS. (P.) LTD. V. CIT [2000] 110 TAXMAN 57/243 ITR 383 (SC) , THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE CIRCULARS OF THE CBDT PROVIDE AS TO H OW THE REVENUE ITSELF UNDERSTANDS THE ENACTMENT/AMENDMENT. HENCE, THE LAN GUAGE OF THE CIRCULAR IS VERY CLEAR THAT REVENUE ACCEPTS THAT 'S TAKE MONEY' IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF TDS. 6. THE NEXT ARGUMENT PUT-FORTH BY THE LEARNED REPRESE NTATIVE WAS THAT SPECIFIC PROVISIONS PREVAIL OVER GENERAL PROVISIONS . AS PER THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE, SECTION 194BB OF THE ACT IS A SPECI FIC PROVISION APPLICABLE IN CASE OF WINNINGS FROM HORSE RACES. IT IS CONTENDED THAT A SPECIFIC PROVISION OVERRULES A GENERAL PROVISION, PROVIDED BOTH THE PR OVISIONS OPERATE IN THE SAME FIELD. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF CIT V. SHAHZADA NAND & SONS[1966] 60 ITR 392 (SC) AND KIRLOSKAR PNEUMATIC CO. LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF SURTAX [1994] 74 TAXMAN 615/210 ITR 485 (BOM.) AND FORBES FORBES COMPBELL & CO. LTD. V. CIT [1994 ] 74 TAXMAN 268/206 ITR 495 (BOM.) . THUS, AS PER HIM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN APPLYING SECTION 194B OF THE ACT, WHICH IS A GENERA L PROVISION APPLICABLE TO 'CARD GAME OR OTHER GAME OF ANY SORT', WHICH WOULD NOT COVER STAKE MONEY ON HORSE RACES; AND, FOR THE LATTER INCOME, SECTION 194BB OF THE ACT IS THE SPECIFIC PROVISION. IT WAS FURTHER BROUGHT TO OUR N OTICE THAT EVEN CBDT ACCEPTS THAT SPECIFIC ENACTMENT PREVAILS OVER THE G ENERAL ENACTMENT. IN CIRCULAR NO. 8 OF 2005, THE CBDT ITSELF HAS STATED THAT SPECIFIC PROVISION OF LAW WILL OVERRIDE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF LAW. WHEN A SPECIFIC SECTION IN CHAPTER XVII IS PROVIDED FOR BY THE LEGISLATURE TO DEAL SPECIFICALLY WITH HORSE RACES, THE REVENUE CANNOT INVOKE A GENERAL SE CTION, SUCH AS 194B OF THE ACT, TO HOLD THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT. IN THIS R EGARD, RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD V. HARI SHANKAR JAIN [1978] 4 SCC 16 AND LIC V. D.J. BAHADUR [1981] 1 SCC 315. 7. THEREAFTER, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASS ESSEE EXPLAINED WHY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194B OF THE ACT ARE NOT A PPLICABLE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT WHEN SECTION 194B OF THE ACT WAS AMENDED I N 2001 TO INSERT THE WORDS 'CARD GAME OR OTHER GAME OF ANY SORT', THE IN TENTION WAS TO COVER TV SHOWS AND QUIZ SHOWS. CORRESPONDINGLY, ANOTHER AMEN DMENT WAS BROUGHT IN SECTION 2(24)(IX) OF THE ACT W.E.F. FROM 01.04.2 002 AND AN EXPLANATION WAS ADDED EXPLAINING THAT THE WORDS 'CARD GAME OR O THER GAME OF ANY SORT' SHALL INCLUDE ANY GAME SHOW, AN ENTERTAINMENT PROGR AM ON TV OR ANY ELECTRONIC MODE IN WHICH PEOPLE COMPETE OR ANY OTHE R SIMILAR GAME. A COMBINED READING OF SECTIONS 194B AND 2(24)(IX) EXP LANATION (II) MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE SAID AMENDMENT WOULD NOT APPLY TO WI NNING FROM HORSE RACES. THIS FACT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS OF FINANCE BILL, 2001 WHICH MAKES IT CLE AR THAT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS TO COVER VARIOUS KINDS OF QUIZ SHOWS WHICH ARE LAUNCHED ON TV AND SHOWS OF SIMILAR KIND. OUR ATTEN TION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE BUDGET SPEECH OF THE FINANCE MINISTER ON 28. 02.2001 WHEREIN HE STATED THAT 'TELEVISION GAME SHOWS ARE VERY POPULAR THESE DAYS AND I PROPOSE THAT INCOME TAX AT 30 % WILL BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE WINNINGS OF THESE AND ALL SIMILAR GAME SHOWS.' HENC E, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT WOULD BE INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THE AFORESTATED A MENDMENT IN SECTION 194B OF THE ACT BRINGS WITHIN ITS FOLD THE 'STAKE M ONEY' RECEIVED BY THE OWNERS OF THE WINNING HORSES; AND, THAT IN ANY CASE , SECTION 194BB OF THE ACT IS THE RELEVANT SECTION, WHICH ANYWAY EXCLUDES THE AFORESAID RECEIPTS FROM ITS PURVIEW. THUS, A SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT IN A GENERAL ENACTMENT CANNOT BE SAID TO OVERRIDE EARLIER SPECIAL ENACTMEN T. IT HAS ALSO BEEN ASSERTED THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 194B OF THE ACT CAME IN 2001 AND, IT WAS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT IN ALL EARLIER YEA RS, THIS PROVISION WAS NEVER MADE APPLICABLE ON THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE THEREAFTER EXPLAINED TH E DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TERM 'WINNINGS' AND 'STAKE MONEY'. 'WINNINGS' I S THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY PEOPLE WHO BET IN HORSE RACES. INCOME BY WAY OF 'STAKE MONEY' IS THE GROSS AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE OWNER ON ACCOUNT OF HO RSE SECURING A POSITION IN THE RACE. HENCE, INCOME FROM 'STAKE MONEY' IS DI FFERENT FROM INCOME FROM 'WINNINGS' AND SECTION 194B OF THE ACT ONLY APPLIES TO INCOME FROM 'WINNINGS'. IT IS BECAUSE OF THIS DIFFERENCE THAT T HE CBDT ISSUED A CIRCULAR IN 1978 (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 19 4BB APPLIES TO 'WINNINGS', AND BECAUSE 'STAKE MONEY' IS DIFFERENT FROM 'WINNINGS'; AND SINCE SECTION 194BB USES THE WORD 'WINNINGS FROM HO RSE RACES', HENCE IT WILL NOT APPLY TO 'STAKE MONEY' AS PER THE CBDT CIR CULAR. CIRCULAR NO. 240 DATED 15.05.1978 WHICH EXPLAINS THE PROVISIONS INSE RTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1978, WHOSE RELEVANT EXTRACT IS AS UNDER: '3. THE TERM 'WINNINGS', IN COMMON PARLANCE, MEANS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE PUNTER IN EXCESS OF THE BET LAID BY HIM ON T HE HORSE OR HORSES WHICH HAVE WON IN THE PARTICULAR RACE. WHERE A PUNTER PLA CES BETS ON MORE THAN ONE HORSE IN A PARTICULAR RACE, THE EXPRESSION WINN INGS' WILL CONNOTE THE AMOUNT WON BY THE PUNTER IN THAT HORSE RACE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT INVESTED BY WAY OF BET ON THE PARTICULAR HORSE OR H ORSES WHICH WON THE RACE, AND NOT BY THE AMOUNT INVESTED ON THE HORSE O R HORSES WHICH LOST IN THAT RACE. HENCE, WHERE A PUNTER INVESTS RS. 100 EA CH ON TWO HORSES - HORSE 'A' AND HORSE 'B'- IN A PARTICULAR HORSE RACE , AND HE WINS RS. 500 ON THE BET PLACED ON HORSE 'A' BUT LOSES THE BET ON HO RSE 'B', THE WINNINGS OF THE PUNTER FROM THIS HORSE RACE WOULD BE RS. 400 (R S. 500 RS. 100) AND NOT RS. 300 (RS. 500-RS. 200). 6. THE PROVISIONS FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE WI LL, HOWEVER, NOT APPLY TO INCOME BY WAY OF STAKE MONEY. THIS IS BECAUSE 'STAK E MONEY' IN COMMON PARLANCE IS NOT REGARDED AS WINNINGS FROM HORSE RAC E, BUT REALLY CONSTITUTES THE 'PRIZE MONEY' RECEIVED ON A HORSE RACE BY THE O WNER THEREOF ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE HORSE WINS THE RACE OR STANDS SECOND OR IN ANY LOWER POSITION.' (UNDERLINED FOR EMPHASIS BY US) IT HAS ALSO BEEN EMPHASIZED THAT EVEN THE LEGISLATU RE ACCEPTS THE AFORESAID UNDERSTANDING OF 'STAKE MONEY' INASMUCH E VEN SECTION 74A OF THE ACT EXPLAINS THE MEANING OF 'STAKE MONEY' AS CO NTAINED IN CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 15.05.1978 (SUPRA). 9. THE NEXT ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED REPRESEN TATIVE WAS THAT THERE IS AN INHERENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SECTIONS 19 4B AND 194BB OF THE ACT; THAT SECTION 194B OF THE ACT WAS INTRODUCED IN 1972 AND SECTION 194BB OF THE ACT WAS INTRODUCED IN 1978. HAD THE GO VERNMENT BEEN OF THE VIEW THAT HORSE RACES ARE COVERED IN SECTION 194B O F THE ACT, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED TO SPECIALLY INTRODUCE A NEW SECT ION ALTOGETHER IN 1978. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT EVEN THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT WAS NEVER TO INCLUDE HORSE RACES WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF SECTION 194B OF TH E ACT. AS PER THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE, THE GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE A MENDED SECTION 194B OF THE ACT ITSELF AND INTRODUCED THE WORDS 'INCOME FROM HORSE RACES'; HOWEVER, THE LEGISLATURE WAS CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT SECTION 194B OF THE ACT OPERATES IN AN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT DOMAIN AND LARGELY REFERS TO 'LUCK BASED GAMES' AS OPPOSED TO 'SKILL BASED GAMES' AND HENCE, DID NOT INCLUDE HORSE RACES WITHIN SECTION 194B OF THE ACT. 10. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 194B OF THE ACT WAS AMENDED IN 2001 AND THE WORDS 'CARD GAME OR OTHER GAME OF ANY SORT' WERE INSERTED. AN AMENDMENT WAS ALSO BROUGHT ABOUT IN SECTION 2(24 )(IX) OF THE ACT WHEREBY IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT 'CARD GAME OR OTHER GAME OF ANY SORT' INCLUDES ANY GAME SHOW, ANY ENTERTAINMENT PROGRAMME ON TELEVISION OR ELECTRONIC MODE, IN WHICH PEOPLE COMPETE TO WIN PRI ZES OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR GAME. HENCE, 'CARD GAME OR OTHER GAME OF ANY SORT' IS TO BE READ AND UNDERSTOOD IN THIS BACKGROUND AND A 'HORSE RACE' CA NNOT BE PUT IN THIS CATEGORY SINCE THIS DEFINITION TALKS ABOUT OTHER GA MES ON TELEVISION OR ELECTRONIC MODE, IN WHICH PEOPLE COMPETE TO WIN PRI ZES. IT REFERS TO A PLATFORM WHEREIN PEOPLE COMPETE AND PARTICIPATE, WH ICH CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH A HORSE RACE. THUS, THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT AT THE TIME OF INTRODUCING THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 194B OF THE ACT WAS TO BRING W ITHIN ITS SCOPE, MONEY EARNED THROUGH GAMES ON TELEVISION OR ELECTRONIC MO DE, IN WHICH PEOPLE COMPETE. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, THE LEARNED REPRE SENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ASSERTED THE PRINCIPLE OF 'EJUSDEM GENERIS ' AND 'NOSCITUR A SOCIIS' ARE APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT SITUATION. IT WAS CAN VASSED THAT AS PER THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLES, ANY WORD OR A PHRASE TAKES IT S COLOUR FROM THE CONTEXT IN WHICH SAME ARE USED. HENCE, THE PHRASE 'OR OTHER GAME OF ANY SORT' IN THE INSTANT SITUATION REFERS TO GAMES AKIN TO THE G AMES WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE TEXT OF SECTION 194B OF THE ACT. THE OTHER PRINCIPLE IS THAT OF 'NOSCITUR A SOCIIS', WHICH MEA NS THAT A WORD IS TO BE JUDGED BY THE COMPANY IT KEEPS. IN OTHER WORDS, IN CASE OF DOUBT, MEANING OF A WORD CAN BE ASCERTAINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE MEANING OF WORDS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS PLA CED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF BOMBA Y V. HOSPITAL MAZDOOR SABHA AIR 1960 SC 610. THUS, WHEN THE WORDS 'OR OTH ER GAME OF ANY SORT' USED IN SECTION 194B OF THE ACT ARE EXAMINED WITH R EFERENCE TO THE PRECEDING WORDS AND INTERPRETED, IT CAN BE CONCLUDE D THAT THE ACTIVITY OF OWNING AND MAINTAINING HORSES CANNOT BE EQUATED WIT H LOTTERIES AND CARD GAMES. MOREOVER, WORDS USED IN SECTION 194B OF THE ACT ARE LOTTERY, CROSSWORD-PUZZLE, AND CARD GAMES, WHICH ARE ESSENTI ALLY 'LUCK ORIENTED' AS OPPOSED TO BEING 'SKILL ORIENTED' AND HENCE, IT WOU LD BE WRONG TO EQUATE A HORSE RACE, WHICH IS SKILL ORIENTED WITH LUCK ORIEN TED GAMES. IT HAS ALSO BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CA SE OF DR. K.R. LAKSHMANAN V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [1997] 223 ITR 60 1 HELD THAT HORSE RACING IS A GAME OF SKILL. 11. IT HAS ALSO BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THE ACT ITSELF DIS TINGUISHES BETWEEN INCOME EARNED FROM LOTTERY AND SUCH GAMES VIS--VIS INCOME OF HORSE OWNERS. ELABORATING FURTHER, IT IS EXPLAINED THAT S ECTION 58 OF THE ACT REFERS TO AMOUNTS NOT DEDUCTIBLE AND SUB-SECTION (4) STATE S THAT NO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY EXPENDITURE SHALL BE ALLOWED WHILE C OMPUTING THE INCOME BY WAY OF ANY WINNINGS FROM LOTTERIES, CROSSWORD PUZZL ES, RACES INCLUDING HORSE RACES, CARD GAMES AND OTHER GAMES OF ANY SORT OR FROM GAMBLING OR BETTING OF ANY FORM OR NATURE, WHATSOEVER. HOWEVER, THE PROVISO THEREOF CLEARLY DISTINGUISHES THE CASE OF THE HORSE OWNERS. IT STATES THAT 'PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL AP PLY IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE, BEING THE OWNER OF HORSES MA INTAINED BY HIM FOR RUNNING IN HORSE RACES, FROM THE ACTIVITY OF OWNING AND MAINTAINING SUCH HORSES.' 12. SECTION 74A OF THE ACT IS A SPECIFIC SECTION STATI NG THAT LOSS ARISING TO HORSE OWNERS FROM THE ACTIVITY OF MAINTAINING AND O WNING RACE HORSES SHALL NOT BE SET-OFF AGAINST OTHER INCOME. EVEN THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ON CARRY FORWARD. HENCE, THIS RESTRICTION OF NO SET-OFF AGAI NST INCOME FROM OTHER 'WINNINGS' AND ALLOWING CERTAIN BENEFITS OF CARRY F ORWARD OF LOSS ARISING FROM THE ACTIVITY OF MAINTAINING AND OWNING RACE HO RSES, AND NOT OTHER 'WINNINGS', MAKES IT EVIDENT THAT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING HAS BEEN TO TREAT 'INCOME BY WAY OF STAKE MONEY' AS DIFFERENT FROM 'INCOME FROM WINNINGS'. FURTHER, SEC TION 115BB OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED VIA FINANCE ACT, 1986, PRESCRI BED A FLAT RATE OF TAX ON WINNINGS FROM SUCH GAMES AND STATES THAT INCOME FROM ANY LOTTERY OR CROSSWORD PUZZLE OR RACE INCLUDING HORSE RACE (NOT BEING INCOME FROM THE ACTIVITY OF OWNING AND MAINTAINING RACE HORSES) OR CARD GAME AND OTHER GAME OF ANY SORT OR FROM GAMBLING OR BETTING OF ANY FORM OR NATURE WHATSOEVER, SHALL BE TAXED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE P ROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION. HENCE, SECTION 115BB OF THE ACT ITSELF DIS TINGUISHES BETWEEN OTHER GAMES AND INCOME EARNED THROUGH THE ACTIVITY OF OWN ING AND MAINTAINING RACE HORSES AND EXCLUDES THE LATTER. NOTABLY, WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 115BB, SUB-SECTION (1) AND (2) OF SECTION 7 4A OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDED FOR SET-OFF OF LOSSES WITH RESPECT TO LOTT ERIES ETC., WERE OMITTED, BUT SUB-SECTION (3), AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, CONTINUED. THU S, AS PER THE APPELLANT, THE LEGISLATURE HAS ALWAYS TREATED LOTTERIES AND SU CH OTHER GAMES DIFFERENTLY FROM THE ACTIVITY OF MAINTAINING AND OW NING HORSES. 13. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WA S RAISED IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE TURF CLUB LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA [2014] 5 2 TAXMANN.COM 290/[2015] 228 TAXMAN 234 , WHEREIN SINGLE JUDGE BENCH OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS RULED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE. IT WAS HELD THAT PRIZE MONEY PAID BY THE RACE COURSE TO TH E OWNERS OF THE HORSES WOULD NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194B OF THE ACT. AGAINST THIS SINGLE BENCH RULING, THE DEPARTMENT MOVED TO THE DI VISION BENCH, WHICH HAS SENT BACK THE CASE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE DE NOVO. FURTHERMORE, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED T HAT THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MADRAS CLUB V. DCIT [IT APPEAL NO. 646-657 (MDS) OF 2015] AND HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HYDERABAD RACE CLUB [IT APPEAL NO. 319/323 (HYD) OF 2015] HAS ADJUDICATED SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. AN ALTERNATE PLEA HAS BEEN RAISED TO THE EFFECT TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE RECIPIE NTS OF THE STAKE MONEY HAVE NOT PAID INCOME-TAX ON THE SAID INCOME, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A FINDING, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN 'ASSE SSEE IN DEFAULT', AND RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAGRAN PRAKASHAN LTD. V. DY. CIT [20 12] 21 TAXMANN.COM 489/209 TAXMAN 92/345 ITR 288 . ELABORATING FURTHER, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE PURPOSE OF CHAPTER XVII OF THE ACT IS TO PROVID E FOR A MECHANISM OF WITHHOLDING TAX. EXPLANATION TO SECTION 191 OF THE ACT CLEARLY STATES THAT A PERSON CAN BE HELD AS AN 'ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT' ONLY WHEN THE RECIPIENT OF INCOME HAS ALSO FAILED TO PAY SUCH TAX DIRECTLY. IN PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, THE OWNERS OF THE HORSES HAVE DECLARED SUCH INCOME IN THEIR TAX RETURNS. HENCE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN 'ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT'. RELIANCE WA S PLACED ON DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES (P) LTD. V. CIT [2007] 163 TAXMAN 355/293 ITR 226 ( SC) . BEFORE US, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE HORSE OWNERS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWING THAT TAXES HAVE BEEN DULY PAID BY THEM. THUS, AS THE HORSE OWNERS WHO HAVE EARNED THE STAKE MONEY ARE LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF TAXES, ANY ADDITIONAL DEMAND ON THE ASSE SSEE WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE RECOVERY, WHICH IS IMPERMISSIBLE. 15. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CAS E, FULL LIST OF RECIPIENTS OF THE 'STAKE MONEY', ALONGWITH THEIR DETAILS/DOCUM ENTS AND CONFIRMATIONS STATING THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN INCLUDED BY THEM IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS OF INCOME WERE FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES, A COPY OF THE SAID LIST HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILE D BEFORE US. COUNTERING THE ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT CERTIF ICATE WAS INCOMPLETE, IT HAS BEEN ASSERTED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS, INCLUDING PAN NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES OF ALL RECIPIENTS WERE PROVIDED. FURTHERMORE, PROVI SO TO SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT IS A BENEFICIAL PROVISION, WHICH HAS BEEN INTRO DUCED TO AVOID UNDUE HARDSHIPS AND IS RETROSPECTIVE IN ITS APPLICABILITY AND IS THUS APPLICABLE FOR THE INSTANT YEAR. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE WAS PLAC ED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS : GUJARAT PIPAVAV PORT LTD. V. DY. CIT [2013] 40 TAXM ANN.COM 174/[2014] 149 ITD 23 (RAJKOT - TRIB.) RADEUS ADVERTISING (P.) LTD. V. ASSTT. CIT [2017] 80 TAXMANN.COM 353/164 ITD 384 (MUMBAI - TRIB.) 16. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND HAS MERELY PLACED RE LIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, AND REITERATED THE REASON ING CONTAINED IN THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED IN T HE EARLIER PART OF THE ORDER, AND IS NOT BEING REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BR EVITY. 17. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS . THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS LIMITED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF TDS ON THE 'S TAKE MONEY' PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE OWNERS OF THE HORSES WHO WIN THE RA CES. IN THIS CONTEXT, WE SHALL FIRST DISCUSS THE TYPE OF PAYMENTS MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE TO OWNERS ON WINNING OF THE HORSE RACES. THE ASSESSEE MAKES TWO TYPES OF PAYMENTS. FIRST, IS IN THE NATURE OF AMOUNT PAID TO THE PERSO N WHO BETS ON THE HORSES/JOCKEYS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARDS TO APPLICABILITY OF TDS ON THIS TYPE OF PAYMENT AS THE SAME IS LIABLE FOR TDS U/S 194BB OF THE ACT. WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE SECOND TYPE OF PAYMENT MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF PRIZE MONEY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE OWNER OF HORSES ON ACCOUNT OF THE HORSE WINNING THE RACE OR STANDING SECOND OR IN ANY LOWER POSITION, WHICH IS TERMED AS 'STAKE MONEY '. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE NATURE OF 'STAKE MONEY', THUS THERE IS NO DISPUTE W ITH RESPECT TO THE FACT AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES 'STAKE MONEY'. THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS OF THE VIEW THAT BY VIRTUE OF AMENDMENT IN SECTION 194B OF THE ACT B Y FINANCE ACT, 2001, THE SCOPE OF SECTION 194B OF THE ACT HAS BEEN WIDEN ED TO COVER WITHIN ITS AMBIT WINNING FROM GAMES OF ANY SORT EVEN THOUGH CI RCULAR NO. 240 DATED 17.05.1978 (SUPRA) ISSUED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 194BB OF THE ACT EXCLUDED FROM ITS AMBIT 'STAKE MONEY'; AS PER THE A SSESSING OFFICER, DUE TO THE AMENDMENT ASSESSEE WAS VERY MUCH LIABLE TO DEDU CT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194B OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT V EHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT THE EXPRESSION 'CARD GAME AND OTHER GAME OF ANY SOR T' DERIVES ITS MEANING FROM THE WORDS ACCOMPANYING IT AND CANNOT BE READ T O MEAN ALL GAMES OF ANY SORT. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT SPECIFIC PROVISION SHALL PREVAIL OVER GENERAL PROVISION AND SECTION 194BB OF THE ACT BEIN G A SPECIAL PROVISION DEALING WITH TDS ON INCOME ARISING FROM HORSE RACES AND CIRCULAR NO. 240 DATED 17.05.1978 (SUPRA) SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDING 'ST AKE MONEY' FROM THE AMBIT OF TDS, IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE AMENDM ENT IN GENERAL PROVISION CANNOT BRING BACK TO TAX WHAT HAS BEEN SP ECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM ITS AMBIT BY THE SPECIAL PROVISION. THUS, IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194B OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE ON 'STA KE MONEY' EVEN AFTER THE AMENDMENT. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE HAD ALSO RAIS ED AN ALTERNATE PLEA THAT THE RECIPIENTS OF 'STAKE MONEY' HAVE ALREADY P AID THE TAXES ON THE 'STAKE MONEY' RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THUS, ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS 'ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT' IN VIEW OF THE DEC ISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA (SUPRA) AN D PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT. 18. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT HEADING OF SECTION 194 B OF THE ACT IS 'WINNING FROM LOTTERY OR CROSSWORD PUZZLE'. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION THAT THE HEADING OF A SECTION SHOULD ALSO BE ASSIGNED MEANING WHILE INTERPRETING THE SECTION. FROM THE HE ADING OF THE SECTION 194B OF THE ACT IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO WHISPER THAT SECTION 194B OF THE ACT WAS INTENDED TO COVER WITHIN ITS PURVIEW WINNINGS FROM HORSE RACES. NOW COMING TO THE HEADING OF SECTION 194BB O F THE ACT, WHICH READS AS 'WINNING FROM HORSE RACE'. GOING BY THE HEADING OF THE TWO SECTIONS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT SECTION 194BB OF THE ACT IS A SPEC IFIC SECTION DEALING WITH TDS ON THE WINNINGS FROM HORSE RACES. THOUGH THE CB DT HAS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED 'STAKE MONEY' FROM THE AMBIT OF SECTION 19 4BB OF THE ACT BY WAY OF CIRCULAR NO. 240 DATED 19.05.1978, BUT IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT SECTION 194BB OF THE ACT IS THE SPECIFIC SECTION WH ICH DEALS WITH TDS ON 'WINNING FROM HORSE RACES'. 19. NOW, COMING TO THE ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT THE FINANCE ACT, 2001 HAS INSERTED THE WORDS 'CARD GAME OR OTHER GAME OF ANY SORT' IN SECTION 194B OF THE ACT WHICH WILL EVEN CO VER THE 'STAKE MONEY' WHICH IS OTHERWISE NOT COVERED BY SECTION 194BB OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT AT THE TIME WHEN THE AMENDMENT WAS BROUGHT IN SECTION 194B OF THE ACT, SECTION 194BB OF THE ACT, WHICH SPECIFICALLY DEALT WITH TDS ON WINNING FROM HORSE RACES, WAS ALREADY ON THE STATUTE AND TH E LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM COULD HAVE MADE THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 194 BB OF THE ACT ITSELF TO INCLUDE 'STAKE MONEY' WITHIN ITS AMBIT; THAT WOU LD HAVE OBVIATED ANY NEED TO MAKE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 194B OF THE ACT, WHICH IS A GENERAL PROVISION FOR TDS, IN ORDER TO COVER 'STAKE MONEY' IN ITS AMBIT. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT TO THE BUDGE T SPEECH OF THE FINANCE MINISTER WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT 'TELEVISION GAM E SHOWS ARE VERY POPULAR THESE DAYS AND I PROPOSE THAT INCOME TAX AT 30 % WILL BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE WINNINGS OF THESE AND ALL SIMILA R GAME SHOWS.' ANOTHER WAY OF BRINGING TO TAX THE 'STAKE MONEY' WAS BY WAY OF WITHDRAWAL OF CIRCULAR NO. 240 DATED 17.05.1978, WHICH CLARIFIED THAT TAX WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED U/S 194BB OF THE ACT WITH R ESPECT TO INCOME BY WAY OF 'STAKE MONEY' AS THE SAME IS NOT REGARDED AS WINNING FROM HORSE RACES. HOWEVER, SAID CIRCULAR IS STILL IN EXISTENCE AND THE LD. DR HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT. THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF THE LEGAL P OSITION LEADS TO AN IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION THAT POSITION OF TDS ON 'ST AKE MONEY' HAS NOT CHANGED EVEN AFTER AMENDMENT IN SECTION 194B OF THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 AND THE POSITION PRIOR TO AMENDMENT CONTINUES TO PREVAIL, I.E. THE STAKE MONEY IS NOT LIABLE TO TDS EITHER UNDER SECTI ON 194BB OR UNDER SECTION 194B OF THE ACT. 20. FURTHER, IT IS A WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW T HAT THE CBDT CIRCULARS ARE BINDING ON THE DEPARTMENT AS IT CLARIFIES THE U NDERSTATING OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BY THE REVENUE WHICH CANNOT B E DISREGARDED BY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES WHILE CONSTRUING THE PROVISI ONS OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR WAS NOT ABLE TO POINT OUT WHY THE INTERPRETATION GI VEN IN THE CBDT CIRCULAR RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT PREVAIL. WE FIND THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS TRIED TO INDIRECTLY TAX WHAT CANNOT BE TAXED BY VIRTUE OF CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT, A SITUATION WHICH IS I MPERMISSIBLE IN LAW. THUS, ON THIS ASPECT ALSO, WE HOLD THAT 'STAKE MONE Y' IS NOT LIABLE TO TDS U/S 194B OF THE ACT. 6.2WE NOTE THAT MUMBAI TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE ISSUES IN ACCORDANCE WITH VARIOUS PROVISIONS INDEPENDENTLY AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 13 AND HELD THAT SECTION 194B/194BB ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO STAKE MONEY. 6.3RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE ALSO HOLD THA T STAKE MONEY PAID BY ASSESSEE TO THE HORSE OWNERS ARE NOT LIABLE TO TDS UNDER SECTION 194B OR SECTION 194 BB OF THE ACT. CONSEQUE NTIALLY NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION 40 (A) (IA ) OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 2-4 RAISED BY ASSESSEE STAND S ALLOWED. GROUND NO. 1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2012- 13 STANDS ALLOWED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15: 7.IDENTICAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED CHALLENGING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY LD. AO UNDER SECTION 40 (A) (IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS UNDER SECTION 194 BB OR SECTION 19 4B OF THE ACT. IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS HEREINABOVE WE HAVE ALR EADY HELD THAT STAKE MONEY PAID BY ASSESSEE TO THE HORSE OWNERS AR E NOT LIABLE TO TDS UNDER SECTION 194B OR SECTION 194BB OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTIALLY NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION 40 (A) (IA) OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 7.1THE SAME VIEW IS APPLIED MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE PRESENT FACTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 2-4 RAISED BY ASSESSEE STAND S ALLOWED. GROUND NO. 1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2014-15 STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH DEC, 2020 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 18 TH DEC, 2020. /VMS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON ON DRAGON SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR - 12 - 2020 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER - 12 - 2020 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. - 12 - 2020 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS - 12 - 2020 SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON - 12 - 2020 SR.PS 7. SIGNED ORDER COMES BACK TO SR.PS/PS - 12 - 2020 SR.PS 8. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE - 12 - 2020 SR.PS 9. IF NOT UP LOADED, FURNISH THE REASON -- SR.PS 10. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK - 12 - 2020 SR.PS 11. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 12. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 13. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 14. DRAFT DICTATION SHEETS ARE ATTACHED NO SR.PS