M/s. Mittal Clothing Company, Bangalore V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 6(2)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2308/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2313 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYADARSHI MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Proportionate interest
• Section: 142(1); 205; 250; 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2308/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 15 MITTAL CLOTHING COMPANY, 102, 3 RD CROSS, 3 RD MAIN, 2 ND STAGE, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU-560 022. PAN AABFM 6725 H VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI V SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRIYADARSHI MISHRA, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 26-11-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-11-2020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGA INST ORDER DATED 27/08/2019 PASSED BY LD.CIT(A)-6, BANGALORE FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 TO THE EXTENT WHICH IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, W EIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN HER ORDER BY REJECTING THE APPELLANT'S CON TENTION THAT THERE COULD NO INTEREST DISALLOWANCE WHEN THE APPELLANT HAS OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND THE SAME FAR EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO SIS TER CONCERN AND WHEN SUCH ADVANCE WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMEN T YEARS AND FAILED PAGE 2 OF 9 ITA NO.2308/BANG/2019 NOTE THAT WHEN TWO REASONABLE CONSTRUCTIONS ARE POS SIBLE, THE ONE THAT IS FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE PREFERRED, IN A S MUCH AS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 3. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN SO FAR IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE APPELLANT IS BAD, ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE 4. LD. COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE SAME. 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN MAKING INTEREST DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 27,59,642/- AND THE LD . COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE SAME. 5. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT EACH OF THE ABOVE GRO UNDS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, VARY, OMIT OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF OBJECTIO N AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONOURABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (TRIBUNAL'), SO AS TO ENABLE THE HON'BLE T RIBUNAL TO DECIDE ON THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 7. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE AND EQU ITY. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: 2. ASSESSEE IS A FIRM AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOM E FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 01/10/2014 DECLARING TOTAL I NCOME OF RS.36,79,870/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) WAS ISSUED TO ASSES SEE. IN RESPONSE TO STATUTORY NOTICES, REPRESENTATIVE OF AS SESSEE APPEARED BEFORE LD.AO AND FILED REQUISITE DETAILS A S CALLED FOR. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, LD.AO NOTED THAT ASS ESSEE HAD ADVANCED CERTAIN FUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,68,51,000/ - TO M/S.G.N.MITTAL INVESTMENTS PVT LTD., WITHOUT ANY IN TEREST. THE LD.AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOANS FROM BANK S TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,41,79,43/- AND WAS PAYING INTEREST O F RS.1,05,75,139/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE. LD.AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE DIVERTED INT EREST-BEARING FUNDS TO M/S.G.N.MITTAL INVESTMENTS PVT.LTD.., AND THEREFORE PAGE 3 OF 9 ITA NO.2308/BANG/2019 DISALLOWED PROPORTIONATE INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.2 7,59,642/- AS AN AMOUNT NOT RELATED TO BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY ADDITION, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 4. LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS BY A SSESSEE OBSERVED AS UNDER: 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CAS E, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSI ON FILED. THE SOLE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THAT THE A DDITION OF RS.27,59,642/- OUT OF INTEREST ON BANK LOAN WAS INC ORRECT. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION IS THAT IT HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS IN THE PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT IN THE RELATED PARTY I.E. C.N - MITTAL INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT SHOWS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 11 5, 10,866/ - IN THE PARTNERS' CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING IN HANDS OF G.N. M ITTAL INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. AS ON 31/03/2013 WAS RS. 1,68,51,000/-. WHILE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THERE WERE NO FRESH INVESTMENT IN G.N. MITTAL INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THAT THERE WAS REP AYMENT OF RS.1,03,000/- BY THE PARTY DURING THIS PERIOD, THE FACT REMAINS THAT INTEREST WAS COLLECTED FROM THE RELATED PARTY WHERE AS HUGE INTEREST OF RS. 1,05,75,139/ - WAS PAID TO THE BANKS.. IN THE FINAN CIAL STATEMENTS, THE AMOUNT T IS SHOWN AS A LOAN TO G.N. INVESTMENTS P. LID. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY OF THIS TRANSACTION WITH THE RELATED PARTY NOR HAS IT EXPLAINED AS TO WHY THE LO AN WAS GIVEN AS AN INTEREST-FREE ONE. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ABHISHEK I NDUSTRIES 205 CTR P H 304, THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAD HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'SECTION -36( (III) OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR DEDUCTI ONS OF INTEREST ON THE LOANS RAISED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. ONCE THE ASSESS EE CLAIMS ANY SUCH DEDUCTION IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ONUS WILL B E ON THE ASSESSEE TO SATISFY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT WHATEVER LOANS W ERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME WERE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. IF IN THE PROCESS OF EXAN2INATON OF GENUINENESS OF SUCH A DEDUCTION, IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED CERTAIN FUNDS TO SISTER CONC ERNS OR AN' OTHER PERSONS WITHOUT ANY INTEREST., THERE WOULD BE VERY HEAVY ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE TO BE DISCHARGED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO THE EFFECT THAT IN SPITE OF PENDING TERM LOANS AND WORKING CAPITAL LOANS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS INCURRING LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST, ST ILL THERE WAS JUSTIFICATION TO ADVANCE LOANS TO SISTER CONCERNS FOR NON-BUSINES S PURPOSES WITHOUT ANY INTEREST AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD B E ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF INTEREST BEING PAID ON THE LOANS RAISED BY IT TO THAT EXTENT. IN OUR VIEW, EVEN THE PLEA OF NEXUS OF LOANS RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE WITH THE FUNDS PAGE 4 OF 9 ITA NO.2308/BANG/2019 ADVANCED TO THE SISTER CONCERNS ON INTEREST FREE BA SIS, MAY HE IT IS PLEADED TO THE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OR SHARE CAPITA L OR DIFFERENT ACCOUNT CANNOT HE ACCEPTED. ENTIRE MONEY IN A BUSINESS ENTI TY COMES IN A COMMON KITTY. THE MONIES RECEIVED AS SHARE CAPITAL, AS TERM LOAN; AS WORKING CAPITAL LOAN., AS SALE PROCEEDS ETC. DO NOT HAVE ANY DIFFERENT COLOUR. WHATEVER ARE THE RECEIPTS IN THE BUSINESS, THAT HAVE THE COLOUR OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND HAVE NO SEPARATE IDENTIFICATI ON. SOURCES HAS NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER. THE ONLY THING SUFFICIENT TO DI SALLOW THE INTEREST PAID ON THE BORROWING TO THE EXTENT THE AMOUNT IS L ENT TO SISTER CONCERN WITHOUT CARRYING ANY INTEREST FOR NON-BUSINESS PURP OSE WOULD BE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOME LOANS OR OTHER INTEREST BEARING D EBTS TO BE REPAID. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD SOME SURPLUS AMOUNT WHICH, AC CORDING TO IT, COULD NOT BE REPAID PREMATURELY TO ANY FINANCIAL INSTITUT ION, STILL THE SAME IS EITHER REQUIRED TO BE CIRCULATED AND UTILISED FOR THE PUT POSE OF BUSINESS OR TO BE INVESTED IN A MANNER IN WHICH IT GENERATES INCOME AND NOT THAT IT IS DIVERTED TOWARDS SISTER CONCERN FREE OF INTEREST . THIS WOULD RESULT IN NOT PRESENTING TRUE AND CORRECT PICTURE OF THE ACCO UNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS AT THE COST BEING INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SIS TER CONCERN WOULD BE ENJOYING THE BENEFITS THEREOF. IT CANNOT POSSIBLY B E HELD THAT THE FUNDS TO THE EXTENT DIVERTED TO SISTER CONCERNS OR OTHER PER SONS FREE OF INTEREST WERE REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF IT S BUSINESS AND LOANS TO THAT EXTENT WERE REQUIRED TO BE RAISED. WE DO NO T SUBSCRIBE TO THE THEORY OF DIRECT NEXUS OF THE FUNDS BETWEEN BORROWI NGS OF THE FUNDS AND DIVERSION THEREOF FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES. RATHER , THERE SHOULD BE NEXUS OF USE OF BORROWED FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF B USINESS TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. THAT BEING THE POSITION, THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM THE FINDING THAT INTEREST BEING P AID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT THE AMOUNTS ARE DIVERTED TO SISTER CONCE RN ON INTEREST FREE BASIS ARE TO BE DISALLOWED. 13. IF THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED THAT TH E INTEREST FREE ADVANCES MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERNS FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOS ES WAS OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS IN THE FORM OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED IN BUSINESS , THAT AGAIN WILL SHOW A CAMOUFLAGE BY THE ASSESSEE AS AT THE TIME OF RAIS ING OF LOAN, THE ASSESSEE WILL SHOW THE FIGURES OF CAPITAL INTRODUCE D BY IT AS A MARGIN FOR LOANS BEING RAISED AND AFTER THE LOANS ARE RAISED, WHEN SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT IS DIVERTED TO SISTER CONCERNS FOR NON-BUSIN ESS PURPOSES WITHOUT INTEREST, A PLEA IS SOUGHT TO BE RAISED THAT THE AM OUNT ADVANCED WAS OUT OF ITS CAPITAL, WHICH IN FACT STOOD EXHAUSTED IN SE TTING UP OF THE UNIT. SUCH A PLEA MAY BE ACCEPTABLE AT A STAGE WHEN NO LOANS H AD BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS. THIS WOULD DEPEND ON FACTS OF EACH CASE. SECTION 106 OF THE INDIAN EVIDE NCE ACT OR THE PRINCIPLES ANALOGOUS THERETO PLACES THE BURDEN IN R ESPECT THEREOF UPON THE ASSESSEE, AS THE FACTS ARE WITHIN ITS SPECIAL K NOWLEDGE. HOWEVER, A PRESUMPTION MAY BE RAISED IN A GIVEN CASE AS TO WHY AN ASSESSEE WHO FOR THE PURPOSE OF RUNNING ITS BUSINESS IS REQUIRED TO BORROW MONEY FROM PAGE 5 OF 9 ITA NO.2308/BANG/2019 BANKS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WOULD BE GIV ING LOAN TO ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES AND THAT TOO WHEN IT PAYS A HE AVY INTEREST TO ITS LENDERS, IT WOULD CLAIM NO OR LITTLE INTEREST FROM ITS SUBSIDIARIES. AN ASSESSEE WITH LIQUIDITY CANNOT CLAIM THAT IT CAN GIVE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO THE PARTNERS AND OTHERS AND THEN BORROW FUNDS FROM THE BANK ON INTEREST FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. SUCH BORROW INGS WILL NOT BE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, BUT FOR SUPPLEMENTING THE CASH D IVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY BENEFIT TO IT. THEREFORE, SO L ONG AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE BENEFICIARY OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE PARTNERS, THEIR RELATIVES AND THE SISTER CONCERNS, AND SO LONG AS T HE ADVANCES ARE INTEREST FREE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS PERFECTLY J USTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE INTEREST IN PROPORTION TO THE ADVANCES MADE. ONCE IT IS BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD BORROWED CERTAIN FUNDS ON WHICH LIABILITY TO PAY TAX IS BEIN G INCURRED AND ON THE OTHER HAND, CERTAIN AMOUNTS HAD BEEN ADVANCED TO SI STER CONCERNS OR OTHERS WITHOUT CARRYING ANY INTEREST AND WITHOUT AN Y BUSINESS PURPOSE, THE INTEREST TO THE EXTENT THE ADVANCE HAD BEEN MAD E WITHOUT CARRYING ANY INTEREST IS TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 36(1 )(III) OF THE ACT. SUCH BORROWINGS TO THAT EXTENT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE HELD F OR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS BUT FOR SUPPLEMENTING THE CASH DIVERTED WI THOUT DERIVING ANY BENEFIT OUT OF IT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WILL N OT BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF THE INTEREST ON THE BORROWINGS TO THE EXTENT THOSE ARE DIVERTED TO SISTER CONCERNS OR OTHER PERSONS WITHOU T INTEREST. THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THO SE OF ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES SUPRA. IN LIGHT OF THE LEGAL POSITION EN UNCIATED IN THE ABOVE DECISION, THE AO'S ACTION IN DISALLOWING PROPORTION ATE INTEREST OF RS. 27,59,642/- IS UPHELD. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED ARE DISMISSED. 5. LD.CIT(A) RELYING ON DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES REPORTED IN 286 ITR 1 UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY LD.AO. 6. AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 7. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 36(III) OF T HE ACT. 8. LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, ASSESSEE HAD INTEREST-FREE FUNDS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: PAGE 6 OF 9 ITA NO.2308/BANG/2019 PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) AMOUNT (RS.) PARTNERS CAPITAL 11,88,80,067/- RESERVES AND SURPLUS 16,46,000/- NON-INTEREST BEARING UNSECURED FUNDS 10,45,10,000/- 22,50,36,067/- AMOUNT ADVANCED TO M/S.G.N.MITTAL INVESTMENT PVT.LTD. 1,68,51,000/- 9. PLACING RELIANCE ON PAGE 20 OF PAPER BOOK, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED FUNDS TO ITS SISTER CON CERN IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS.1,68,51,000 /- AND THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING AS ON 31/03/2014 WAS RS.1,67,48 ,000/-. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD IS REPORTED IN 313 ITR 340. 10. ON THE CONTRARY LD.SR.DR PLACED RELIANCE ON ORD ERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SI DES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 12. WE NOTE THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN T HE FORM OF PARTNERS CAPITAL AND RESERVES AND SURPLUS AS ITS OW N FUNDS. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY US THAT THE FUNDS WERE ADVANCED TO TH E SISTER CONCERN IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND IT RED UCED IN THE CURRENT YEAR. THE LD.AR FILED BEFORE US, DECISION O F HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS M/S.BRINDAVAN BEVERAGES PVT LTD IN ITA NO.67 OF 2015 , WHEREIN, HONBLE COURT BY ORDER DATED 26/10/2016 HAS OBSERVED THAT DECISION RELIED UPON BY PAGE 7 OF 9 ITA NO.2308/BANG/2019 LD.CIT(A) OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , HAS BEEN REVERSED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF MUNILAL SALES CORPORATION VS CIT REPORTED IN DECISION RELIED UPON BY LD.CIT(A) OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , THE SAME HAS BEEN REVERSED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF MUNILAL SALES CORPORATION VS CIT REPORTED IN 298 ITR 288 . 13. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE VIEW, THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD.CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE REVERSED. WE DIRECT LD.AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE UNDER SECTION 36(III) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.27,59,642/-. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOW ED. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH NOV, 2020 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 27 TH NOV, 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 PAGE 8 OF 9 ITA NO.2308/BANG/2019 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON ON DRAGON SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR -11-2020 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER -11-2020 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. -11-2020 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS -11-2020 SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON -11-2020 SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE -11-2020 SR.PS 8. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON -- SR.PS 9. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK -11-2020 SR.PS 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 11. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 12. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 13. DRAFT DICTATION SHEETS ARE ATTACHED NO SR.PS PAGE 9 OF 9 ITA NO.2308/BANG/2019