SUADELA CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. CIT (A) 3, MUMBAI

ITA 2067/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 101127 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJUNATH R SWAMY
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

1 M/S SUADELA CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD ITA 2067 /MUM/201 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E , MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI N K BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. : 2 067 /MUM/20 1 4 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 1 0 ) M/S SUADELA CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD , . 514, DALAMAL TOWERS, 211, FREE PRESS JOURNAL MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 0 2 1 .: PAN: AA LCS 0443 D VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJUNATH R SWAMY /DATE OF HEARING : 16 - 0 9 - 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 - 09 - 201 5 ORDER . . , : PER N K BILLAIYA , A M: WITH THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT - 3 , MUMBAI, DATED 28.02.2014. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.11.2011 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 2. THE BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF REAL ESTATE. THE RETURN FOR THE YEAR WAS FILED ON 29.09.2009 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 20,64,158/ - . THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGLY STATUTORY NOTICES WERE IS SUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. AFTER DISCUSSION AND VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE 2 M/S SUADELA CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD ITA 2067 /MUM/201 4 ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ACCEPTING THE RETURNED LOSS OF RS. 20,64,158/ - . 3. ASSUMING THE JURISDICTION AND ASSUMING POWER CONFE RRED UPON HIM BY SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE CIT ISSUE D NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT CONTENTS OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE IS READS AS UNDER : - ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS, CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 30.11.2011. THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COMMENCED IN FY 2007 - 08, RELEVANT TO AY 2008 - 09 AND THE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED PRELIMINARY EXPENSES OF RS. 14,87,380/ - IN AY 2009 - 10 WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF RS. 14,87,380/ - U/S 35D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, SINCE NO EXPANSION OF ANY UNDERTAKING HAS TAKEN PLACE OR A NEW UNIT SET UP DURING F.Y. 2008 - 09. THE TDS CERTIFICATES SUBMITTED ISSUED BY AXIS BANK LTD AND ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE SHOWS AN AMOUNT OF R S. 28,21,622 / - AS INTEREST RECEIVED. AGAINST THIS, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 27,89,795/ - ONLY HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS BAKARO STEEL LTD REPORTED IN 236 ITR 315, THE INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS AMOUNTING T O RS. 27,89,795 / - , REDUCED FROM THE COST CONSTRUCTION OF WORK IN PROGRESS HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE A.O. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHILE REFERRING TO THE DECISION IN THE BOKARO STEEL IN THE CASE OF BONGAIGAON REFINERY & PETROCHEMICALS LTD. VS CIT RE PORTED IN 251 ITR 329, HAS HELD THAT INTEREST INCOME IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HENCE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER/EXAMINE THESE ISSUES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 43,09,002/ - RESULTING IN SHORT LEVY OF TAX AMOUNTING TO RS. 13,29,481/ - . 3 M/S SUADELA CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD ITA 2067 /MUM/201 4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ITO.3(3)(3), MUMBAI DATED 30.11.2011 APPEARS TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMMITTED THE LAPSE OF NOT APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE ISSUES DISCUSSED ABOVE. I, THEREFORE, PROPOSE TO PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORDER ENHANCING OR MODI F YING THE ASSESSMENT, OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263. IN RESPONSE TO THE AFOREMENTIONED NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY DATED 15.01.2014. IT WAS STRONGLY CON TENDED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT A COMPLETE SUBMISSION REGARDING CL A IM OF EXPENSES U/S 35D WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER VIDE SUBMISSION DATE D 21.10.2011. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE DETAILS OF THE WIP INCLUDING THE INTEREST INCOME COMPONENT WAS ALSO PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT ALL THESE A SPECTS HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSUMPTION OF THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS UNLAWFUL. 4. HOWEVER, THE SUBMISSIONS/CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FI ND ANY FAVOUR WITH CIT WHO PROCEEDED BY INVOKING THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON HIM BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND CONCLUDED BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER A DETAILED VERIFICATION OF SUBMISSION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN IN THE STATEMENT FILED. AGGRIEVE D BY THIS, THE 4 M/S SUADELA CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD ITA 2067 /MUM/201 4 ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT. PER CONTRA , THE DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH ARE ALSO EXHIBITED ELSEWHERE. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTUAL MATRIX, WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS PROCEEDED ON WRONG ASSUMPTION OF FACTS. THE CIT HAS HELD THAT THE PRELIMINARY EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE INCURRED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09 WHEREAS THE BUSINESS H AS COMMENCED FROM 10.07.2007 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, THEREF ORE, THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENSE AS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSE AND ALLOWABLE U/S 35D OF THE ACT CARRIES NO WEIGHTAGE . THIS ENTIRE FINDING OF THE CIT IS BASED ON THE WRONG ASSUMPTION OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS HAS COMMENCED FROM 10.07.2007. THE CORRECT F ACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 10.07.2007. THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN COMMENCED ONLY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS I DERATION. OUR VIEW IS ALSO FORTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD CURRENT ASSETS , LOANS AND ADVANCES PROJECT WORK - IN - PROGRESS AS ON 31.03.2008 WAS ONLY RS. 13,373/ - AND AS ON 31.03.2009 WHICH IS THE IMPUGNED FINANCIAL YEAR, WIP IS SHOWN AT RS. 1,47,77,27,412/ - WHICH MEANS THAT THE ENTIRE PURCHASE OF LAND WAS DONE DURING THE YEAR WHICH ALSO MEANS THAT THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN COMMENCED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE EXPENDITURES CLAIM AS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE ARE ALLOWABLE U/S 35D OF THE ACT. 6. IN SO FAR AS THE SECOND ISSUE RELATING TO TAXABILITY OF INTEREST INCOME IS CONCERNED, THE CIT HAS H EAVILY RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THANE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (206 ITR 727). THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT IS THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE 5 M/S SUADELA CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD ITA 2067 /MUM/201 4 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. WITHOUT GOIN G DEEP INTO THESE OBSERVATIONS, THESE OBSERVATIONS OF CIT ITSELF SHOWS THAT TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED ONE POSSIBLE VIEW, THEREFORE , INVOKING THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS UNLAWFUL. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO, REPORTED IN 243 ITR 83 HAS LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING RATIO : - A BARE READING OF SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PERQUISITE FOR THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER SUO MOT U UNDER IT, IS THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISE D IS ERRONEOUS ; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT IF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SECTION 263(1) OF THE ACT. THE PRO VISION CANNOT E INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WIL L SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. 7. NOW, LET US SEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE RATIO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON A N INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW. AS POINTED OUT ELSEWHERE, THE CIT HAS PROCEEDED BY AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS IN SO FAR AS THE DATE OF INCORPORATION HAS BEEN TAKEN AS THE DATE OF COMMENC EMENT OF THE BUSINESS AND AS POINTED OUT ELSEWHERE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOLLOWED A PARTICULAR VIEW WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM T HE VIEW OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO REFER TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF AURANGABAD HOLIDAY RESORTS P LTD., REPORTED 6 M/S SUADELA CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD ITA 2067 /MUM/201 4 IN 305 ITR (AT) 294 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAD THE OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE BINDING NATU RE OF THE DECISION OF ONE OF THE HIGH COURTS ON ANOTHER HIGH COURT. THE TRIBUNAL MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION AT PARA 10 : - IN THIS LIGHT, AND BEARING IN MIND THE FACT THAT LIMITED QUESTION BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS WAS WHETHER OR NOT DECISION OF ONE OF T HE HIGH COURTS IS BINDING ON ANOTHER HIGH COURT, IT WOULD APPEAR TO AS THAT RATIO DECIDENDI IN THANA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY LTD [1994] 206 ITR 727 (BOM), IS ON THE NON BINDING NATURE OF A HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT ON ANOTHER HIGH COURT. IN ANY CASE, THIS DIVISION BENCH DID NOT, AND AS STATED IN THIS JUDGMENT ITSELF, COULD NOT HAVE DIFFERED WITH ANOTHER DIVISION BENCH OF THE SAME STRENGTH IN THE CASE OF GODAVARIDEVI SARAFS CASE [1978] 113 ITR 589 (BOM). THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE OPEN TO A SUBORDINATE TRIBUNAL LIKE US TO DISREGARD ANY OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WHETHER IN THE CASE OF THANA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY LTD. [1994] 206 ITR 727 OR IN THE CASE OF GODAVARIDEVI SARAFS CASE [1978] 113 ITR 589. IT IS INDEED OUR DUTY TO LOYALLY EXTENT UTMOST RESP ECT AND REVERENCE TO THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT, AND TO READ THESE TWO JUDGMENTS BY THE DIVISION BENCHES OF EQUAL STRENGTH OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT , I.E., IN THE CASES OF THANA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY LTD. [1994] 206 ITR 727 (BOM) AND GODAVARIDEVI S ARAFS CASE [1978] 113 ITR 589 (BOM), IN A HARMONIOUS MANNER. AND AT PARA 13, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FURTHER OBSERVED AS UNDER : - IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT WHILE THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THANA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY LTD.S CASE [1994] 206 ITR 727 (BOM) WAS WHETHER OR NOT A HIGH COURT SHO U LD FOLLOW ANOTHER HIGH COURT, WHEREAS IN GODAVARIDEVI SARAFS CASE [1978] 113 ITR 589 (BOM), THEIR LORDSHIPS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT A NON JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS TO BE 7 M/S SUADELA CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD ITA 2067 /MUM/201 4 FOLLOWED BY A BENCH OF THE I NCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL . TO THAT EXTENT, AND IRRESPECTIVE OF SOME CASUAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE NON - JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS ON THE SUBORDINATE COURTS AND THE TRIBUNALS, THESE TWO DECISIONS DEAL IN TWO DIFFERENT AREAS. AS WE HAVE NOTICED EARLIER ALSO, IN THANA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY LTD. S [1994] 206 ITR 727 (BOM), A NOTE WAS TAKEN OF GODAVARIDEVI SARAFS [1978] 113 ITR 589 (BOM),THE HONBLE COURT WAS ALIVE TO THE FACT, WHICH WAS ACKNOWLEDGED IN SO MANY WORDS, THAT A CO - ORDINAT E BENCH DECISION CANNOT BE OVERRULED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, IT IS DIFFICULT TO HOLD, AS HAS BEEN STRENUOUSLY ARGUED BEFORE US BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GODAVARIDEVI SARAFS CASE [1978] 113 ITR 589 STANDS OVERRULED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF THANA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY LTD.S CASE [1994] 206 ITR 727 (BOM). THE ONLY WAY IN W H ICH WE CAN HARMONIOUSLY INTERPRET THESE JUDGMENTS IS THAT THESE DECISIONS DEAL WITH TWO D IFFERENT ISSUES AND RATIO DECIDENDI OF THESE DECISIONS MUST BE CONSTRUED ACCORDINGLY. BY READING THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A VIEW WHICH MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THE VIEW OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER AND ASSUMING THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A LOSS TO THE REVENUE BUT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. ( SUPRA ) HAS HELD THAT EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A N ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE , FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN ITO ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PRESUMABLY IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ITO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE LD. COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ORDER 8 M/S SUADELA CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD ITA 2067 /MUM/201 4 WHICH IS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITO IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 8. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO MENTION AND RELY UPON THE OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT MADE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GABRI E L INDIA LTD, REPORTED IN 203 ITR 108 WHEREIN , THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE ITO COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HIS ORDER, HE DID NOT MAKE ANY ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD. 9. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND IN TOTALITY IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF LAW, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NEITHER ERRON EOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER U/S 263 AND RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD SEPTEMBER , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( ) ( . . ) ( RAM LAL NEGI ) ( N K BILLAIYA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 23 RD SEPTEMBER , 2015 / COPY TO: - 1 ) / THE APPELLANT. 2 ) / THE RESPONDENT. 3 ) THE C IT 3 /CIT (A) CONCERNED_____ , MUMBAI. 4 ) THE ADDL CIT / CIT CONCERNED_____ , MUMBAI. 5 ) , , / THE D.R. E BENCH, MUMBAI. 6 ) \ 9 M/S SUADELA CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD ITA 2067 /MUM/201 4 COPY TO GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / / , DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI * . . *CHAVAN, SR.PS . SR.N EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT ON HANDWRITTEN MANUSCRIPT 18 .0 9 . 20 1 5 . . SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 21 .09.20 1 5 . . SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER / JM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER / AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS . . SR.PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON . . SR.PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK . . SR.PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER