ACIT, Faridabad V. M/s. Mascot Footcare, Faridabad

ITA 2364/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 236420114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: SACHIN VASUDEVA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Question of law
• Section: 14A; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E , NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2364 /DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ACIT, CIRCLE II, B BLOCK, VS. MASCOT FOOTCARE, CGO COMPLEX, NH-IV, PLOT NO.130, SECTOR 24, FARIDABAD FARIDABAD GIR / PAN:AACFM2564K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P DAM KANUNJHA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SACHIN VASUDEVA, FCA DATE OF HEARING : 18/03/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.03.2015 ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FIELD BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 28.02.2012. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED 2 GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ONE OF WHICH RELATES TO THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAD DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.12,56,610/- MADE BY A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. THE OTHER GRIEVANCE OF REVENUE IS THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAD DELETED AN ADDITION OF RS.52,193/- OUT OF TO TAL ADDITION OF RS.1,73,796/- MADE BY A.O. U/S 36(1)(III) OF I. T. ACT, 1961. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND THE INCOME FROM WHICH IS E XEMPT AND, THEREFORE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A, DISALLOWANCE WAS MANDATORY AND IN VIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF RULE 8D, THE A.O. HAD RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF 2 ITA NO.2364/DEL/2012 RS.12,25,610/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS HELD THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF RECEIPT OF EXEMPT INCOME, THE ADDITION HAS TO BE MA DE U/S 14A IF THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT AND INCOME OF WHICH IS EXEMPT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. REGARDING SECOND ADDITION, LD. D.R. HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. LD. A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO INCOME EARNED BY ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR WHICH FACT IS CLEAR FRO M THE FINDINGS OF A.O. VIDE PARA 5.2. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS HOLSIM INDIA P. LTD. IN I.T.A. NO. 486 AND 2 99/2014 ORDER DATED 05.09.2014 HAS HELD THAT WHERE THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME, DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A CANNOT BE MADE. IN THIS RESPECT, HE FILED A CO PY OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION THE CASE OF HOLSIM INDIA P. LTD. (SU PRA). LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LAKHANI MARKETING INCL. VIDE ORDER DATED 02.04.2014 HAD SIMILARLY HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A REQUIRES INCURRING OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURE AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY EXPENDITURE, WHICH WAS INCURRED TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME AND, THEREFORE, THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS DULY COVERED IN ITS FAVOUR ON THIS ACCOUNT ALSO. IT WAS REITERATED THA T IN FACT, SINCE NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF HOLCIM INDIA (P) LTD. WAS APPLICABLE. REGARDING SECOND ADDITION, LD. A.R. RELIED UPON LD. CIT(A)S ORDER. 4. WE HAVE HARD RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. HOLCIM INDIA (P) LTD. IN I.T.A. NO. 486 & 299/ 2014 ORDER DATED 05.09.2014, IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HAS HELD AS U NDER: 3 ITA NO.2364/DEL/2012 ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE COULD HAVE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME AND EVEN IF NO DIVIDEND INCOME WAS EARNED, YET SECTION 14A CAN BE INVOKED AND DISALLOWANCE OF EXPE NDITURE CAN BE MADE, THERE ARE THREE DECISIONS OF THE DIFFERENT HI GH COURTS DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE AND AGAINST THE APPELLANT-REVENUE. NO CONTRARY DECISION OF A HIGH COURT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO US. THE PUNJAB AN D HARYANA HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD VS. M/S. LAKH ANI MARKETING INCL. , ITA NO. 970/2008, DECIDED ON 02.04.2014, MADE REFERENCE TO TWO EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE SAME COUR T IN CIT VS. HERO CYCLES LIMITED , [2010] 323 ITR 518 AND CIT VS. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LIMITED , [2009] 319 ITR 204 TO HOLD THAT SECTION 14A CANNOT BE INVOKED WHEN NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED. THE SECOND DECISION IS OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I VS. CORRTECH ENERGY (P.) LTD. [2014] 223 TAXMANN 130 (GUJ.). THE THIRD DECISION IS OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT I N INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 88 OF 2014, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (II) KANPUR, VS. M/S. SHIVAM MOTORS (P) LTD . DECIDED ON 05.05.20 14. IN THE SAID DECISION IT HAS BEEN HELD: AS REGARDS THE SECOND QUESTION, SECTION 14A OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME UNDE R THE CHAPTER, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITUR E INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. HENCE, WHAT SECTION 14A PROVI DES IS THAT IF THERE IS ANY INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE INCOME UNDER THE ACT, THE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS INCURRED FOR EARNING THE INCOME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION, T HE FINDING OF FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EARNED ANY TAX FREE INCOM E. HENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TAX FREE INCOME, THE CORRESPONDING E XPENDITURE COULD NOT BE WORKED OUT FOR DISALLOWANCE. THE VIEW OF THE CIT(A), WHICH HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL, HENCE DOES NOT G IVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. HENCE, THE DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2, 03,752/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS IN ORDER . INCOME EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10 IN A PARTICULAR ASSE SSMENT YEAR, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN EXEMPT EARLIER AND CAN BECOME TAXABLE IN FUTURE YEARS. FURTHER, WHETHER INCOME EARNED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR WOULD OR WOULD NOT BE TAXABLE, MAY DEPEND UPON THE NATURE OF TRANS ACTION ENTERED INTO IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. FOR EXAMPLE , LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES IS PRESENTLY NOT TAX ABLE WHERE SECURITY 4 ITA NO.2364/DEL/2012 TRANSACTION TAX HAS BEEN PAID, BUT A PRIVATE SALE O F SHARES IN AN OFF MARKET TRANSACTION ATTRACTS CAPITAL GAINS TAX. IT I S AN UNDISPUTED POSITION THAT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE IS AN INVESTMENT COMPANY AND HAD INVESTED BY PURCHASING A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SHAR ES AND THEREBY SECURING RIGHT TO MANAGEMENT. POSSIBILITY OF SALE O F SHARES BY PRIVATE PLACEMENT ETC. CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND IS NOT AN IM PROBABILITY. DIVIDEND MAY OR MAY NOT BE DECLARED. DIVIDEND IS DE CLARED BY THE COMPANY AND STRICTLY IN LEGAL SENSE, A SHAREHOLDER HAS NO CONTROL AND CANNOT INSIST ON PAYMENT OF DIVIDEND. WHEN DECLARED , IT IS SUBJECTED TO DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX. WHAT IS ALSO NOTICEABLE IS THAT THE ENTIRE OR WHOLE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN DISALLOWED AS IF THERE WAS NO EXPENDITURE INCU RRED BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE FOR CONDUCTING BUSINESS. THE CI T(A) HAS POSITIVELY HELD THAT THE BUSINESS WAS SET UP AND HA D COMMENCED. THE SAID FINDING IS ACCEPTED. THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HAD TO INCUR EXPENDITURE FOR THE BUSINESS IN THE FORM OF I NVESTMENT IN SHARES OF CEMENT COMPANIES AND TO FURTHER EXPAND AND CONSO LIDATE THEIR BUSINESS. EXPENDITURE HAD TO BE ALSO INCURRED TO PR OTECT THE INVESTMENT MADE. THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID EXPEND ITURE AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS INCURRED FOR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WAS NO T DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE CIT(A). IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE PRESENT APPEALS. THE SAME ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 5. THIS IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT E ARNED EXEMPTED INCOME DURING THE PRESENT YEAR, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE CASE OF HOLCIM INDIA (P) LTD., WE HOLD THAT DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND, THEREFORE, WE DISMISS GROUND NO.1. 6. NOW, COMING TO GROUND NO.2, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS ALLOWED PART RELIEF OF RS.52,193/- OUT OF DISALLOWANCE OF R S.1,73,796/- BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSE L FOR THE APPELLANT AND GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS FILED ON R ECORD AS WELL AS 5 ITA NO.2364/DEL/2012 THE JUDICIAL RULINGS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL AND THE A.O. IN GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.1,73,796/ - MADE BY THE AO BY INV OKING THE PROVISO TO SECTION 36(L)(III) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INTERES T PAID ON TERM LOAN AND THE FUNDS UTILIZED OUT OF CC ACCOUNT FOR ACQUISITIO N OF ASSETS. AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 36(1)(III), ANY AMOUNT OF TH E INTEREST PAID IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL BORROWED FOR ACQUISITION OF AN A SSET FOR EXTENSION OF EXISTING BUSINESS, WHETHER CAPITALIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR NOT, FOR ANY PERIOD BEGINNING FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE CAPITAL WAS BORROWED FOR ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET TILL THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH ASSET WAS FIRST PUT TO USE, SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUC TION. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PERTAINING TO TERM LOAN IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE FUNDS WERE ALSO UTILIZED FROM CC ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA. THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE TERM LOAN WAS AVAILED ONLY IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AND THE INVESTMENT IN BUILDING ETC. WAS MADE OUT OF INTERNAL ACCRUALS. TH E TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE IN FIXED ASSETS DURING THE YEAR WAS RS.3.93 CR ORES. NEITHER THE AO HAS EXACTLY IDENTIFIED THE AMOUNT OF TERM LOAN U TILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY NOR HAS THE APPELLA NT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH SUCH DETAILS. THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPE LLANT ALONG WITH SUBMISSIONS DATED 01.11.2011 REVEAL THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.1, 73, 796 / - PERTAINS TO BOTH TERM LOAN AS WELL AS F UNDS UTILIZED FROM THE CC BANK ACCOUNT. SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT PROV IDES FOR ALLOWING OF INTEREST AS AN ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURE SUBJECT TO FULF ILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS THAT THE FUNDS MUST HAVE BEEN BORROWED, THE EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST ON SUCH FUND SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN CURRED AND THE BORROWED FUND MUST HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPO SE OF BUSINESS. IN THE IDENTICAL FACTS WHEN THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX WAS MADE OUT OF OVER DRAFT ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE BUSINESS PROFITS WER E ALSO DEPOSITED, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF W OOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT (7 TAXMAN 188) HELD THAT- 'HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT APPEARE D THAT THE ASSESSEE'S PROFITS, WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN THE OVE RDRAFT ACCOUNT, WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE ADVANCE TAX LI ABILITY. IT SHOULD, THEREFORE, BE PRESUMED THAT IN ESSENCE AND IN THEIR TRUE CHARACTER, THE TAXES WERE PAID OUT OF THE PROFITS O F THE YEAR AND NOT OUT OF THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT FROM THE RUNNING O F THE BUSINESS. THE IMPUGNED INTEREST WAS, THEREFORE, NOT RELATABLE TO 6 ITA NO.2364/DEL/2012 THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX AND HENCE COULD NOT BE D ISALLOWED IN COMPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS INCOME.' IN A LATTER DECISION, THE HON'BLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWERS LTD. (221 CTR 435) HA S HELD THAT- 'IF THERE BE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO AN AS SESSEE SUFFICIENT TO MEET ITS INVESTMENTS AND AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSES SEE HAD RAISED A LOAN IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE F ROM THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE. IN OUR OPINION THE SUPREME CO URT IN EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD.'S CASE (224 ITR 627) HAD THE OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD.'S CASE (134 ITR 219) WHERE A SIMILAR ISS UE HAD ARISEN. BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IT WAS ARGUED THAT IT SHOU LD HAVE BEEN PRESUMED THAT IN ESSENCE AND TRUE CHARACTER THE TAX ES WERE PAID OUT OF THE PROFITS OF THE RELEVANT YEAR AND NOT OUT OF THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT FOR THE RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS AND IN THESE CIRCUM STANCES THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTIONS. THE SUPREME COURT NOTED THAT THE ARGUMENT HAD CONSIDERABLE FORCE, BUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE CONTENTION HAD NOT BEEN ADVANCED EARL IER IT DID NOT REQUIRE TO BE ANSWERED. IT THEN NOTED THAT IN WOOLC OMBERS OF INDIA LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA) THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAD COM E TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PROFITS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY AND THE PROFITS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE OVE RDRAFT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN SUCH A CASE IT SHOULD BE PRESUMED T HAT THE TAXES WERE PAID OUT OF THE PROFITS OF THE YEAR AND NOT OUT OF THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT FOR THE RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS. IT NOTED THAT TO R AISE THE PRESUMPTION, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT MATERIAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAD URGED THE CONTENTION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE PRINCIPLE THE REFORE WOULD BE THAT IF THERE ARE FUNDS AVAILABLE BOTH INTEREST-FRE E AND OVERDRAFT AND/OR LOANS TAKEN, THEN A PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT INVESTMENTS WOULD BE OUT OF THE INTEREST FREE FUND GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IF THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENTS.' THE PRINCIPLE THAT FOLLOWS FROM THE ABOVE JUDICIAL RULINGS IS THAT WHEN THE SALE PROCEEDS, RECOVERIES FROM THE DEBTORS AND INTERNAL ACCRUALS ETC. ARE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN OD/CC ACCOUNT AND THE INVESTMENT IN ASSETS IS MADE WHICH ARE NOT PUT TO U SE IN BUSINESS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST CANNOT BE MADE ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FROM OD I CC ACCOUNT, PROVI DED THE 7 ITA NO.2364/DEL/2012 INTERNAL ACCRUALS ARE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVEST MENTS MADE IN THE ASSETS. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT TH E INTERNAL ACCRUALS WERE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1.23 CRORES, WHICH ARE ROU GHLY 30% OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE IN ASSETS. THEREFORE, 30% OF THE INTEREST DISALLOWED BY THE AO PERTAINS TO INTERNAL ACCRUALS. HOWEVER, SINCE THERE IS DIRECT NEXUS OF TERM LOAN WITH ACQUISITION OF MACHINERY, THE INTEREST PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD TILL THE ASSET IS PUT TO USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS HAS TO BE CAPITALIZED IN TERMS OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE DISAL LOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 70% OF RS.1,73,796/-, BEING RS.1,21,657/-IS CONF IRMED. THE CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECT OF THIS ADDITION WOULD BE ON T HE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. THE ASSETS HAVE BEEN PUT TO USE DURIN G THE YEARS AND THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON THE ABOVE ADDITION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE REMAININ G ADDITION OF RS.52,193/- IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 7. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS MADE A CLEAR FINDING OF FACT THAT INTERNAL ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTED ABOUT 30% OF V ALUE OF FIXED ASSETS AND, THEREFORE, HE HAD ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF 3 0% AND HAS UPHELD ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 70% OF DISALLOWANCE. LD. CIT(A) H AS PASSED A WELL REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER AND, THEREFORE, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH HIS FINDINGS. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.2 IS, ALSO DISMISSED . 8. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 9. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH MARCH, 2015. SD./- SD./- ( G. C. GUPTA) (T.S. KAPOO R) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE:25.03. 2015 SP 8 ITA NO.2364/DEL/2012 COPY FORWARDED TO:- THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI) S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 19/3 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 20,22,23 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 25/3/2015 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 25/3 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 25/3 SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER