ACIT, Trichur V. The South Indian Bank Ltd, Trichur

ITA 208/COCH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81435 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHAN PULIKKAL
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 14A; 37

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.20 8 & 181/COCH/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JM & CHANDRA POOJARI, AM ITA NO.208/COCH/2014 : ASST.YEAR 2007-2008 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) THRISSUR. THE SOUTH INDIA BANK LIMITED SIB HOUSE, PB NO.28 MISSION QUARTERS THRISSUR 680 001. PAN : AABCT0022F (APPELLANT) V. (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.181/COCH/2014 : ASST.YEAR 2007-2008 THE SOUTH INDIA BANK LIMITED SIB HOUSE, PB NO.28 MISSION QUARTERS THRISSUR 680 001. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE 1(1) THRISSUR. (APPELLANT) V. (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI ANILKUMAR, CIT-DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MOHAN PULIKKAL DATE OF HEARING : 03.12.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.12.2014 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM THESE ARE TWO CROSS APPEALS, ONE BY THE REVENUE AN D THE OTHER BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-V, KOCHI, DATED 04.12.2013, RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008. 2 ITA NO.20 8 & 181/COCH/2014 REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 208/COCH/2014 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS THREE GROUNDS O F APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED EIGHT GROUNDS OF APPEAL. W E ARE TAKING UP THE REVENUES APPEAL FIRST. 3. FIRST GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST TH E DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,00,90,000 BEING INVESTMENT CONSIDERE D BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-2001 TO 2003-2004. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER I N ITA NOS.9 & 10/COCH/2011 DATED 18.09.2012 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE KER ALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LORD KRISHNA BANK AND NEDUNGADI BANK. T HE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL READS AS FOLLOWS:- 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND AL SO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY QUESTION ARI SES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE NOTIONAL LOSS SAID TO BE SUFFERED BY THE TAXPAYER ON REVALUATION OF THE SECURITIES IS ALLOWA BLE AS DEDUCTION OR NOT. THIS ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. NEDUNGADI BANK LTD. (SUPRA)(264 ITR 545) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUN CEMENTS ON THE SUBJECT FOUND THAT SECURITY HELD BY THE BANK CONSTI TUTE THEIR STOCK IN TRADE OR INVESTMENT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE BANK IN VALUATION OF THEIR SECURITIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE TAXABLE PROFIT. IN VIEW OF THIS JUDGM ENT OF THE KERALA 3 ITA NO.20 8 & 181/COCH/2014 HIGH COURT, THE LOSS SUFFERED BY THE TAXPAYER IN RE VALUATION OF THE SECURITIES HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. 5. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE TAXING AUTHORITY DISA LLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER ON THE GROUND THAT THE BALANCE-SHEET O F THE RESPECTIVE COMPANIES WAS NOT FILED TO ESTABLISH THE VALUATION. THE CONTENTION OF THE TAXPAYER IS THAT THE VALUATION WA S MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE GUIDELINE ISSUED BY RBI TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION THE REALISABLE VALUE. IN FACT, AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A), THE TAXPAYER CLAIMED THAT THE REV ALUATION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE GUIDELINE ISSUED BY THE RB I AND THE VALUE IS BASED ON REALISABLE VALUE. THE TAXPAYER HAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT IN SPITE OF TH EIR BEST EFFORT, THEY COULD NOT GET THE COPIES OF THE BALANCE-SHEET FROM THE RESPECTIVE COMPANY. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS NO T SUGGESTED ANY FORMULA FOR VALUATION OF THE UNQUOTED SHARES. O N IDENTICAL SITUATION THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD. (SUPRA)(ITA NO.234 OF 2009 DATED 07-10-2010) EXAMIN ED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE KERALA HIGH C OURT IN NEDUNGADI BANK LTD. (SUPRA) AND OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS - ..IT IS A SETTLED POSITION THROUGH VARIOUS DECISI ONS INCLUDING THAT OF THIS COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS . NEDUNGADI BANK LTD. REPORTED IN (2003) 264 ITR 545 THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT COST PRICE OR MARKET VALUE WHICHEVR IS LOW SHOULD BE ADOPTED. ADMITTEDLY MARKET VALUE IS NOT KNOWN AND SO MUCH SO, SOME METH OD HAS TO BE ADOPTED TO FIX THE MARKET VALUE AND THEREAFTE R ONLY THE LOWER OF THE COST PRICE OR THE MARKET VALUE HAS TO BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF PROFIT OR LOSS IN RESPECT OF THE UNSECURED SECURITIES. SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE I.T.A.NO. 234/2009 PRODUCED RBI GUIDELINES BEFORE US WHEREIN THE RBI HAS SUGGESTED BANKS TO VALUE UNQUOT ED CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SECURITIES ON THE BASIS OF THE P RICES/YTM RATES PUT OUT BY THE PDAI/FIMMDA AT 6 I.T.A. NOS. 4 79 & 480/COCH/2011 PERIODICAL INTERVALS. YTM IS THE YIEL D TO MATURITY METHOD ADOPTED FOR VALUATION OF SECURITIES . IT IS SEEN THAT THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES VALUATION WHICH IS BASED ON RBI GUIDELINES TO THE BANKS FOR VALUATION OF UNQUOTED GOVERNMENT SECURITIES, WE FEEL IT IS THE R ATIONAL BASIS WHICH ASSESSEE WAS BOUND TO ADOPT. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ALSO HAS NOT COME OUT WITH ANY FORMULA FOR COMPUTATION OF MARKET VALUE OF UNQUOTED SECURITIES AND HE HAS NO CASE THAT THE RBI GUIDELINES FOR VALUATION I S IRRATIONAL. 4 ITA NO.20 8 & 181/COCH/2014 SO MUCH SO, WE FEEL THE TRIBUNAL RIGHTLY UPHELD ASS ESSEES CLAIM FOR VALUATION OF UNQUOTED GOVERNMENT SECURITI ES BASED ON RBI GUIDELINES. 6. THE RBI ISSUED GUIDELINES TO VALUE TO UNSECURED SHARES ON THE BASIS OF YTM, I.E., YIELD TO MATURITY METHOD ADOPTE D FOR VALUATION OF SECURITIES. THE KERALA HIGH COURT HAS ALSO FOUND TH AT YTM RATES HAVE BEEN PUT OUT BY THE PDAI/FIMMDA AT PERIODICAL INTER VALS. THEREFORE, WHEN THE TAXPAYER REVALUED THE ASSET ON THE BASIS O F THE GUIDELINE ISSUED BY THE RBI AT REALIZABLE VALUE I.E. YTM METH OD SUGGESTED BY RBI, THE TAXING AUTHORITY CANNOT FIND FAULT WITH TA XPAYER. AS OBSERVED BY KERALA HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING AUTHOR ITY HAS NOT COME OUT WITH ANY SUGGESTION/FORMULA FOR COMPUTATIO N OF MARKET VALUE OF UNQUOTED SHARES. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE O F THE REVENUE THAT THE GUIDELINE ISSUED BY THE RBI FOR VALUATION IS IR RATIONAL. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF NEDUNGADI BANK LTD. (SUPRA) AND LORD KRISHNA BANK L TD. (SUPRA) IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT TAXPAYER ALSO . THEREFORE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE KERALA H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEDUNGADI BANK LTD. (SUPRA) AND LORD KRISHN A BANK LTD. (SUPRA) AND FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN THE ORDE RS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING AUTHORI TY IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE NOTIONAL LOSS CLAIMED BY THE TAXPAYER ON REVALUATION OF THE SECURITIES AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE TOT AL INCOME. 4. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL I N THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE EARLIER YEARS, WE DISMISS THE GROU ND OF THE REVENUE BY UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A). THIS GROUN D IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. THE SECOND GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINS T THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.7,17,341 ON ACCOUNT OF APP RECIATION ON CURRENT CATEGORY OF INVESTMENT. 5 ITA NO.20 8 & 181/COCH/2014 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED BY TH E TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.18/COCH/2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.6.2011 WHEREIN HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- WE HA VE PERU S ED TH E O RD E R OF TH E T R IBUN A L IN TH E ASSESSEE ' S OW N C A SE FO R A Y S 20001-01 & 2001-02 A ND FI ND I T T O B E CO V ER IN G TH E ASSES S EE' S C A SE IN P RIN C IP LE . I N FAC T , THE ASS E SS E E IT SE L F PL E A D S FO R THE S AM E, I. E . , A R ES TOR A TI O N TO TH E F IL E OF T H E AO T O CO N S ID E R THE I SS UE AFRESH AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE IT S SA ID ORDER . TH E TRIBUN A L IN THE ASSE S SEE' S CA SE FOR THE E A RLI E R Y E A R (S UPR A) , AS EXPL A IN E D B Y TH E LD . C I T ( A ) , FO UN D T H A T T H E INVE S TMENT IN THE UNQUOTED S H A R ES IS T O B E TREATED AS A P A RT OF I T S S T OC K-IN - TR A D E A ND , A CC O RDINGL Y, V ALUED A T COS T O R M A RKET VA LU E , W HI C H EV ER I S L ESS, IN T ER M S OF TH E D EC I SIO N IN THE C AS E OF CIT VS. N ED U N G A D I B A N K LTD. ( S UPR A) , A ND R ES TOR E D B ACK TH E M A TT ER B AC K T O T H E FILE O F THE ASS E S SIN G A UTH O RIT Y F OR FAC TU A L D E T E RMIN A TION. A S S U C H , TH E A O 'S O BJ EC TI O N W ITH R EG ARD TO TH E NON - AV AILAB I L I T Y OF TH E MA R K E T QUOT A TION ; TH E S H ARES B E IN G UNQU O T E D , A S A L SO QU A NON WR I TE OFF OF TH E R E L EVA NT IN VES TM E NT IN B O OK S ; TH E SA M E B E IN G L IAB L E FO R A VA LU A TION , AS S T OC K-IN-TR A D E , O N E A C H VA LU A TI O N D A T E , WO ULD N O T H O LD . S O , H OWEVER , T H E FAC T TH A T THE B A L A NCE- S H EE T S WERE U N - C OMMUNI CA BL E O R TH E CO MP A NI E S WERE D EF UN C T , W HI C H ONL Y WOULD EN A BLE TH E VA LU A TI O N A T N I L A S AGA IN S T BR EA K-UP VA LU E; T H E ASSESSEE C L AI MIN G LOS S FOR TH E E NTIR E B OO K VA LU E, WO ULD NE E D T O BE ES T A BLI S H E D B Y IT ; T H E ASSSESSE IT SE L F C LAIMING THE VALUE OF TH E S AID INV ES TM E NT S AS A T THE FOLLO W IN G VA LU A TI O N D A T E (3 1/ 3 / 2 007 ) AT RS.L7 LACS, A PP A RENTL Y D I S PR OV IN G IT S C L A IM OF TH E B A L A N C E- S H EE T S B E IN G N O T CO MMUNI CA BLE O R TH E CO MP A NI E S B E IN G D E FUN C T . W E, ACCO RDIN G L Y , F IN D N O IN FI RM I T Y IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER; THE AO SHALL IN THE RESTORED PROCEEDINGS DECIDE THE MATTER FACTUALLY, ISSUING SPECIFIC FINDINGS IN THE MATTER. WE DECIDE ACCORDIN GLY, CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS GROUND. 6.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TR IBUNAL AS AFORESAID, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. 6 ITA NO.20 8 & 181/COCH/2014 7. THE THIRD GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.59,82,05,441 ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATIO N CLAIMED ON HTM CATEGORY INVESTMENTS. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED BY TH E TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1003/COCH/2008 BY FOLL OWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. NEDUNGADY BANK LTD. (264 ITR 545 (KER.) . THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 30 OF ITS ORDER DATED 31.05.2011, HELD AS UNDER:- 30. THE REVENUE BEFORE US HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POI NT OUT ANY INFIRMITY IN HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON B Y THE LD CIT(A).THE TRIBUNAL, IN PASSING THE SAID ORDER, HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS NEDUGANDI BANK LTD (SUPRA). IT IS NOT THE REVENUES CASE THAT THE TRIB UNAL HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE SAID DECISION BY THE HONB LE COURT OR THAT THE SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE STATE SO AS, WHERE APPLICABLE, AS FOUND BY THE TRIBUNAL I N THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR AY 2001-01, THE SAME IS BINDING ON THE TRI BUNAL, SO THAT IT WAS INCUMBENT FOR THE REVENUE TO EXHIBIT THE INAPPL ICABILITY OF THE SAID DECISION IF IT WERE TO SECURE A FAVORABLE FROM , OR ANY MODIFICATION/VARIATION FROM ITS EARLIER DECISION BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE SAME, IN FACT, AND FOR THE SAME REASONS, REPRESENTS THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL (REFER DY CIT VS FEDERAAL BANK LTD VS CIT IN ITA NO.718/COCH/2008 DATED 17.9.2010 FOR AY 2006-07. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSING THE REVENUES GROUND. 8.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDING GIVEN BY THE TRIBU NAL, WE INCLINE TO DISMISS THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO. 7 ITA NO.20 8 & 181/COCH/2014 THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. FIRST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST T HE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 10. AFTER HEARING RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSING THE REL EVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 . THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.18/COCH/2009 DATED 30 TH JUNE, 2011, RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR TAKING A DEC ISION BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN CIT V. THE DHANALAKSHMY BANK LTD. [ITA NO.1324 OF 2009 DATED 21 ST OCTOBER, 2010]. THE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30 TH JUNE, 2011, READS AS FOLLOWS:- 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. 4.1 THE CONTENTION BY BOTH THE PARTIES WAS THAT TH E DECISION BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT V. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD APPLY. THE TRI BUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 2002-03 AN D 2005-06 ( IN ITA NOS.722 & 935/COCH/ 2008 DATED 31.5.2011) RESTO RED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO, ISSUING INSTRUCT IONS AS DEEMED RELEVANT. THE SAME WOULD APPLY WITH EQUAL FORCE IN THE INSTANT CASE AS WELL, BEING ESSENTIALLY AN EXPLANATION OF T HE BINDING DECISION BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WHICH T HE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED FOR BEING FOLLOWED IN LETTER AND SPIRIT. W E HOLD LIKE WISE. FURTHER, THE SAID ORDER BEING IN RELATION TO THE AS SESSEE ITSELF, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SAID ORDER. 8 ITA NO.20 8 & 181/COCH/2014 4.2 THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO PLEADS I TS CASE WITH REFERENCE TO THE SHARES BEING, IN FACT, A TRADING A SSET, ALSO YIELDING TRADING INCOME. WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE SAME AS OF M UCH RELEVANCE, AS THE DISALLOWANCE IS ONLY IN RELATION TO THE DIVIDEND INCOME, WHICH IS EXEMPT AND, THUS, OF THE SAME CHAR ACTER (TAX- FREE), WHETHER THE INVESTMENT IN SECURITIES IS MADE BY CONSIDERING IT TO BE A TRADING ASSET OR OTHERWISE, I.E., IRRESP ECTIVE OF THE TURNOVER THEREIN. EVEN AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS (SUPRA), IT IS THE INV ESTMENT IN THE IMPUGNED ASSET THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT. 4.3 WE CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES CASE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT V. DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD. (SUPRA) AS WELL AS BY THE TR IBUNAL IN ITS OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. WE, ACCORDINGLY, RESTOR E THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH LIKE DIRECTIONS. TH E ASSESSEES GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE T RIBUNAL AS AFORESAID, THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR DECISION AFRESH. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. 11. SECOND GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE CONF IRMATION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS.30,43,83,717 U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. 12. THIS ISSUE, WE FIND, SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECIS ION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. THE LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD. (ITA NO.234 OF 2009 DATED 7 TH OCTOBER, 2010) , WHEREIN THE COURT DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4. NEXT QUESTION RAISED PERTAINS TO ASSESSEE'S CLA IM FOR DEDUCTION OF PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS IN TERMS OF SECTION 36(1 )(VIIA) OF THE 9 ITA NO.20 8 & 181/COCH/2014 INCOME TAX ACT. HERE THE ONLY QUESTION RAISED IS AS TO BASIS OF CLASSIFYING BRANCHES OF THE BANK AS RURAL BRANCHES AND OTHER BRANCHES. RURAL BRANCH IS DEFINED UNDER EXPLANATION (IA) TO SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) AS FOLLOWS: 'RURAL BRANCH' MEANS A BRANCH OF A SCHEDULED BANK O R A NON- SCHEDULED BANK SITUATED IN A PLACE WHICH HAS A POPU LATION OF NOT MORE THAN TEN THOUSAND ACCORDING TO THE LAST PRECED ING CENSUS OF WHICH THE RELEVANT FIGURES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BEFO RE THE FIRST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR.' WHAT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE IS THAT CLASSIFICATION BETWEEN RURAL AND OTHER BRANCHES OF A BANK IS MADE BASED ON THE P OPULATION IN THE PLACE WHERE THE CONCERNED BRANCH IS LOCATED. WH ILE THE ASSESSEE'S CASE THAT FOUND ACCEPTANCE WITH THE TRIB UNAL IS THAT 'PLACE' REFERRED TO IN THE ABOVE DEFINITION CLAUSE IS THE WARD OF A PANCHAYAT OR MUNICIPALITY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO OK THE VIEW THAT 'PLACE' CONTAINED IN THE DEFINITION CLAUSE SHOULD M EAN A REVENUE VILLAGE. NO DOUBT, 'PLACE' AS SUCH IS NOT DEFINED I N THE DEFINITION CLAUSES AND SO MUCH SO, WE HAVE TO FIND OUT THE SCO PE AND MEANING OF 'PLACE' REFERRED TO IN THE SECTION. STAN DING COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT PRODUCED BEFORE US LAST PUBLISHED CE NSUS REPORT OF 2001. EVEN THOUGH THE PREVIOUS CENSUS REPORT MAY BE THE RELEVANT ONE, WE FEEL THE SCOPE OF 'PLACE' AS REFER RED TO IN THE CENSUS REPORT PRODUCED COULD BE ADOPTED FOR THE PUR POSE OF THIS CASE. WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE CENSUS REPORT 2001 IS AS FOLLOWS: 'THE BASIC UNIT FOR RURAL AREAS IS THE REVENUE VILL AGE WITH DEFINITE SURVEYED BOUNDARIES. THE RURAL AREA IS HOWEVER TAKE N AS THE RESIDUAL PORTION EXCLUDING THE URBAN AREA AND FOR T HAT NO STRICT DEFINITION IS FOLLOWED.' 5. IN OUR VIEW, THE DEFINITION CLAUSE DOES NOT EXCL UDE THE LITERAL MEANING OF RURAL BRANCH WHICH NECESSARILY EXCLUDES URBAN AREAS. IF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT P OPULATION IN A WARD HAS TO BE RECKONED FOR DECIDING AS TO WHETHER THE LOCATION 10 ITA NO.2 08 & 181/COCH/2014 OF A PANCHAYAT IS IN A RURAL AREA OR NOT IS ACCEPTE D, THEN PROBABLY EVEN IN MUNICIPAL AREAS THERE MAY BE WARDS WITH LES S THAN 10000 POPULATION THEREBY ANSWERING THE BRANCH LOCATED IN SUCH MUNICIPAL AREA ALSO AS A RURAL BRANCH. GOING BY THE ORDINARY MEANING OF RURAL BRANCH, WE FEEL ONLY BRANCHES OF T HE BANK LOCATED IN RURAL AREAS ARE COVERED. WHEN THE LEGISL ATURE ADOPTS POPULATION AS THE BASIS FOR CLASSIFICATION OF RURAL BRANCHES, THAT TOO, WITH REFERENCE TO THE LAST CENSUS REPORT, WE FEEL T HE BASIC UNIT AS AVAILABLE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF RURAL AREA IN THE C ENSUS REPORT CAN BE LEGITIMATELY ADOPTED. SO MUCH SO, WE FEEL THE AB OVE MEANING OF RURAL AREA CONTAINED IN THE CENSUS REPORT WHEREI N REVENUE VILLAGE IS TREATED AS A UNIT OF RURAL AREA, CAN BE RIGHTLY ADOPTED. SO MUCH SO, 'PLACE' REFERRED TO IN THE ABOVE DEFINITIO N CLAUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTIFYING THE BRANCH OF A BANK AS A RU RAL BRANCH WITH REFERENCE TO IT'S LOCATION IS THE REVENUE VILLAGE. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT 'PLACE' REFE RRED TO IN THE DEFINITION IS THE WARD OF A LOCAL AUTHORITY LIKE PA NCHAYAT OR MUNICIPALITY IS INCORRECT AND IN OUR VIEW, A RURAL BRANCH HAS TO BE ALWAYS IN RURAL AREAS AND THE PLACE REFERRED CAN EA SILY BE TAKEN AS A VILLAGE. SEVERAL WARDS MAY COME WITHIN A VILLAGE, WHETHER IT BE IN CORPORATION, MUNICIPALITY OR PANCHAYATS. THERE C AN BE NO VILLAGE IN A MUNICIPAL OR CORPORATION AREA WHERE TH E POPULATION IS LESS THAN 10000. SO MUCH SO, RURAL BRANCHES ARE SUC H OF THE BRANCHES LOCATED IN A VILLAGE WHERE THE POPULATION IN THE VILLAGE AS A UNIT IS LESS THAN 10000. WE, THEREFORE, ALLOW THE APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE BY REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND BY RESTORING THE ASSESSMENT. 12.1 IN VIEW OF THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE HONBLE KE RALA HIGH COURT, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DISMI SS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 11 ITA NO.2 08 & 181/COCH/2014 13. THE THIRD GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAIN ST THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT AMOU NTING TO RS.4,13,00,000. 14. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT SIMILA R ISSUE HAS COME UP FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH C OURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.186 OF 2011. THE COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 22 ND JANUARY, 2014 DISMISSED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE B Y HOLDING AS UNDER:- 6. THEN COMING TO THE SECOND ISSUE, IT PERTAINS TO THE PROVISION MADE FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT AND THE DISALLOWANCE CLAI MED WAS UNDER SECTION 43B(F). AS ALREADY STATED ABOVE, THE OPINION OF THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE L IGHT OF THE STAY ORDER OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF ITANO. 186 OF 2011 CALCUTTA IN EXCIDE INDUSTRIES CASE AND THE SLP STATED ABOVE IS STILL PENDING. THEREFORE, THE OPINION OF THE TRIBUN AL SO FAR AS DISALLOWANCE CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT UNDER SECTION 43B(F) OF THE ACT, AS ON TODAY, THE PROVISI ON SEEMS TO BE IN FORCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE STAY ORDER GRANTED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE SLP. THEREFORE, AS LONG AS SECTION 43B(F) IS ON STA TUTE, THE SAID DISALLOWANCE IS JUSTIFIED. 14.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT, WE REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE BY UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 15 THE FOURTH GROUND RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE IN RES PECT OF PAYMENT OF PENSION U/S 37 AMOUNTING TO RS 6,79,07,6 28/-. 12 ITA NO.2 08 & 181/COCH/2014 16 WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 479 C OCH/2011 FOR THE AYS 2003-04 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.6.2013 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DHANALAXMI BANK LTD (REFERR ED SUPRA). WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE PENSION FUND IS CREDITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A CCOUNT AND THE AMOUNT OF PENSION GIVEN TO ITS RETIRED EMPLOYEES IS DEBITE D TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IN THAT SCENARIO, THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXPRES SED THE OPINION THAT THE AMOUNT OF PENSION PAID BY THE TAXPAYER HAS TO BE AL LOWED AS DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PAY THE PE NSION. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE IS EXTR ACTED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE: 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISALLOWANCE OF PENSION PAID B Y THE TAXPAYER TO THE RETIRED EMPLOYEES. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D R IS THAT THE TAXPAYER CONTRIBUTE TO THE PENSION FUND AND ALSO PA YS PENSION OF ITS RETIRED EMPLOYEES AND CLAIMS BOTH THE PAYMENTS AS D EDUCTION; THEREFORE, THERE IS DUPLICATION OF PAYMENT. THE EX PLANATION OF THE TAXPAYER APPEARS TO BE THAT THE PENSION IS NOT PAID TO THE RETIRED EMPLOYEE FROM THE FUND. THE PENSION FUND PAYS TO T HE TAXPAYER AND WHAT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE PENSION FUND IS NOT SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO MEET THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF PENSION TO I TS RETIRED EMPLOYEES. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF PENSION RECEIV ED FROM THE PENSION FUND IS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOU NT AND THEREAFTER THE TAXPAYER MAKES PAYMENTS TO ITS RETIRED EMPLOYEE S. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF PENSION RECEIVED FROM THE PENSION FUN D IS CREDITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND WHAT WAS PAID BY THE TAXPAYER IS DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, A CCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THERE IS NO DUPLICATION. THIS TRIB UNAL FINDS THAT IF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE PENSION FUND IS CREDITED T O THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE TAXPAYER AND THEN THE TAXPAYER MAKES THE PAYMENT TO THE RETIRED EMPLOYEES AS PENSION, THEN T HERE MAY NOT BE ANY DUPLICATION AT ALL. BUT IT HAS TO BE VERIFIE D WHETHER THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE PENSION FUND IS CREDITED I N THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OR NOT. IT ALSO NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED WHETHER ANY 13 ITA NO.2 08 & 181/COCH/2014 PAYMENT IS MADE TO THE RETIRED EMPLOYEES FROM THE P ENSION FUND DIRECTLY. IF NO PAYMENT IS MADE FROM THE PENSION F UND DIRECTLY AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE PENSION FUND IS CREDITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND THEN THE TAXPAYER MAKES T HE PAYMENT TO ITS RETIRED EMPLOYEES BY DEBITING THE SAME IN THE P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THEN THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE TAXPAYER AS PE NSION HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PAY THE PENSION. SINCE THESE FACTS WERE NOT EXAMIN ED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITY, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER THE AMOUNT RECEI VED FROM THE PENSION FUND IS CREDITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOU NT AND WHETHER THE PENSION FUND AUTHORITIES HAVE MADE ANY PAYMENT DIRECTLY TO THE RETIRED EMPLOYEES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE MATTER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING O FFICER SHALL RE- EXAMINE THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THIS TRIBUNAL AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME AFTER GIVING REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE TAXPAYER. 7. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THAT INSTANT CASE ARE A LSO IDENTICAL WITH THE CASE OF M/S DHANALAKSHMI BANK. WE NOTICE THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE PRESENT CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO DUPLICATION IN THIS REGARD. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS RE-EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF DHAN ALAXMI BANK LTD (REFERRED SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH BY DULY CONSI DERING THE FACTS PREVAILING ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO BY TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DHANALAXMI BANK LTD (REFERRED SUPRA). 16.1 THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE I SSUE AFRESH BY DULY CONSIDERING THE FACTS PREVAILING ON THIS ISSUE AND A LSO BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DHANALAXMI BANK LTD (REFERRED SUPRA). 14 ITA NO.2 08 & 181/COCH/2014 17 THE FIRTH GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE CONF IRMATION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO R S.7,23,497 ON ACCOUNT OF SURPLUS REALIZED ON SALE OF JEWELLERY . 18. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY T HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2006- 07 IN ITA NO. 18 & 65/COCH/2009 DT 30.6.2011 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 28. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE M A TERIAL ON R EC ORD. WE F IND TH A T TH E TRIBUN A L ( COCHIN BEN C H ) HA S T A KEN A CON S I S TENT V I EW TH A T THE SA ID SURPLU S, B E IN G OUT S T A NDIN G F O R Y EA R S, ASS UM ES TH E N A TUR E O F A TR A D E S URPLU S, VES TIN G IN THE ASS E SSEE, A ND IT S A SS E SS MENT AS, CON SE QU E NTL Y, GOVE RNED B Y THE PRINCIPLE S ENUNC IA T E D IN TH E CASE O F C IT V S. T. V.S . I YENG AR & S ONS LT D. (S UPR A). TH E F AC T OF N O N W RI T E B AC K O R A P P R O PRI A TI O N O F TH E SAME IN THE ACCOUNT S WA S FOUND B Y IT A S NOT M A TERIAL TO THE D EC I S ION IN TH E M A TTER . RELIANCE FOR THE PURP OS E I S PL ACE D O N THE DE C I S ION IN THE CASE OF C IT (ASST.) VS. CA TH O LI C S Y RIAN BANK LTD . (IN I . T . A N O. 66/ C OCH/2009 DAT E D 11 . 2 . 2 011 ) A ND IN TH E ASSESSEE'S OW N CA S E FOR AY . 2005 - 06 ( IN I . T . A NO . 100 3 /COCH12009 D A T E D 3 1/5/2011 , PAR AS 34, 3 5 ) . 18.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING DECISION FINDING GIVEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 19 SIXTH GROUND RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.4,05,22 5/-ON ACCOUNT 0F EXCESS CASH RECEIVED AT THE BRANCHES. 15 ITA NO.2 08 & 181/COCH/2014 20 WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY T HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2006- 07 IN ITA NO. 18 & 65/COCH/2009 DT 30.6.2011 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 15 . WE H A VE HE A RD TH E P A RTI ES, A ND P E RU SE D TH E M A T ERIA L O N RECO RD . WE F IND TH A T TH E S AM E I SS UE H A D A RI SE N IN TH E ASSESSEE'S CASE FO R TH E I MM E DI A T E L Y P RECE DIN G YEAR A.Y 2005-06 ( IN I . T . A. N O . 93 5/C OC H/ 2 00 8 D A TED 3 1 . 5. 2 01 1) . TH E TRIBUN A L , WI TH R EFERE N CE T O IT S EARLIER DECI S ION IN TH E CAS E OF CAT H OLIC S Y R IAN B ANK VS . CIT (ASST . ) [IN I . T . A . NO. 10/COCH/2009 D A TED 11 . 2 . 2 011] , UPH E LD THE RE V ENU E'S STA ND . TH E SA ME , IN IT S VIEW, COULD ONLY BE CON S IDERED AS A CONTIN GE NT L I A BILI TY, A ND TH E P R IN C IPL ES AS E NUM ERA T E D I N T H E CASE OF SHR EE DI GV IJ AY C EME NT M IL L S L TD. VS . V OF (2 00 2) 2 59 ITR 705 ( S Q A ND CI T VS . T .V S I YE N GA R & SONS LT D . ( 1 996) 222 ITR 344 (S C ), WERE FO UND A PPLI CA BL E I N TH E UNDI S PUT E D FAC T S A ND CI R C UM STA N CES OF T H E CASE . W E, T H E R EFORE, IN LIN E W I T H T H E D ECISIO N S B Y TH E TR I BUN A L , IN C LUD I N G IN TH E ASSESSEE ' S OW N CASE FO R T H E EA RL IER YEAR, U P H O L D TH E ADDITION . WE DECIDE ACCOR D I N G L Y 20.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING DECISION GIVEN BY THE C OORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO. 21 SEVENTH GROUND RELATES TO COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 115JB. 23 AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD AR DID NOT PRESS T HIS GROUND AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED 16 ITA NO.2 08 & 181/COCH/2014 24 THE LAST ISSUE RELATES TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 2 34B AND 234C 25 WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY TH E DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2006- 07 IN ITA NO. 18 & 65/COCH/2009 DT 30.6.2011 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- A LIABILITY U/S 234B( 3 ) PR OVI DE S F O R A N IN C RE ASE IN TH E LI A BILIT Y U/ S . 234 B ( L ), I.E . , O N A R EG U LAR ASSESS M ENT . TH E ISS U E, AS AG R EE D TO B Y TH E P ARTIES B EFO R E U S , S T A ND S SI N CE D ECI D E D B Y TH E J U R I SDICTIONAL HI G H CO URT I N TH E ASSESSEE'S OW N CASE FO R A N EAR LI E R YEAR [ REPORTED A T 325 I T R 517 (KER . )], W H E R E IN I T HELD OF N O S U C H EXCE P T I O N , I.E., AS CO NT E ND E D TO B Y T H E A S SESSEE, FOR THE L EVY OF INT ERES T U/ S. 23 4B ( 3 ), SO TH A T TH E I N TERES T AS L EVIED I S IN ACCO R DA N CE WI T H T H E PROVISIO N S OF L AW. W E DE C ID E ACCO RD I N G L Y . 25.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COOR DINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSE E FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO. 26 IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTY ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 24TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S. GANESAN) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER COCHIN: DATED 24TH DEC 2014 /DEVDAS & RAJ* 17 ITA NO.2 08 & 181/COCH/2014 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT, 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN 1 DATE OF DICTATION 8 DEC 2014 2 DT ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 10 DEC 2014 3 DT ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR P S/PS 4 DT ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER 5 DICTATION PAID PLACED IN THE ORIGINAL FILE (NO.OF PAGES) 6 DT OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24/12/2014 7 DT ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 24/1 2/2014 8 DT ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DT ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO AR 10 DT OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER