ASHA BHOSLE, MUMBAI V. ITO 11(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2552/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 255219914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K B MENON
• Keywords: Capital asset; Deemed owner of house property; Cost of acquisition; Bad and doubtful debts; Ignorance of law
• Section: 37(1); 27

Judgement Text

1 ITA 2552/ M/10, MRS. ASHA BHOSLE. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, J.M. AND SHRI R.K. PAND A, A.M. ITA NO. 2552/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 SMT. ASHA BHOSLE, FLAT NO. VIKAS ANAND CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY, PLOT NO. 124, AMRUT APARTMENT, 10 TH ROAD, KHAR (W), MUMBAI -400 052. PAN ABBPB 5610K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 4 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI 400020. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI JITENDRA SANGHA VI RESPONDENT BY SHRI P.K.B. MENON DATE OF HEARING 21.7.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.9.2011 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DT. 11.07.03 OF THE CIT(A)- 3, MUMBAI RELATING TO A.Y. 2004-05. 2. 2. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 READS AS UNDER:- THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING FLATS AT V IKAS ANAND, KHAR TO BE CONSIDERED AS SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY AND THER EFORE CALCULATING THE INCOME THEREFROM TREATING THE SAME AS A DEEMED LET OUT PROPERTY. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE THE FLATS AT VIKAS ANAND, KHAR ARE SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY AND THEREFORE SELF OCCUP ANCY ALLOWANCE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN RESPECT OF SAID FLATS . 2 ITA 2552/ M/10, MRS. ASHA BHOSLE. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REPUTED PLAY BACK SINGER. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE A.O. NOTED FROM THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME THAT ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT ` 10511/- IN RESPECT OF SEVEN FLATS OWNED BY HER AT VARIOUS PLACES IN MUMBAI AND PUNE AS DEEMED LET OUT PROPERTY U/S 2 2 TO 27 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE DETAILS OF THE COST OF THE FLATS AS STAT ED BY THE A.O. ARE AS UNDER:- (I) FLAT AT PRATIBHA CO. OP. SOC. - ` 6,77,500 (II) FLAT AT VIKAS ANAND CO.OP. SOC. - ` 46,83,000 (III) TWO FLAT AT MARYLAND, SANTACRUZ - ` 11,75,000 (IV) FLAT AT POONA I - ` 3,35,000 (V) FLAT AT POONA II - ` 85,000 IT WAS SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE ORDINARILY RESIDES AT 102 PRABHUKUNJ, PEDD AR ROAD, MUMBAI, A FLAT OWNED BY HER DAUGHTER MS. VARSHA BHOSLE AND OTHER S EVEN FLATS IN MUMBAI AND PUNE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT A RESIDENTIAL IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT LONAVALA. THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROPERTIES HAS BEEN DECLARED AT ` 10511/- BY ADOPTING MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE U/S 22/23 OF THE I.T. ACT. ACCORDING TO THE A.O., THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE CANNOT BE A BAROMETER FOR DETERMINING ALV. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AN ADHOC AMOUNT OF ` NIL FOR MARYLAND PROPERTY CONSIDERING THE SAME AS SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY WHILE COMPUTING THE PROPERTY INCOME. EXCLUDING THE BUNGALOW UNDER CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS NOT OCCUPIED, THE A.O. ESTIMATED THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME AT 8% OF THE CO ST OF ACQUISITION IN RESPECT OF FIVE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN MUMBAI AND PUNE. 3.1 DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE STAT ED THAT FLAT AT VIKAS ANAND IS SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF 8% OF COST OF ACQUISITION, THE ASSESSEE WISHED TO TREAT VIKAS ANAND PROPERTY AS SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY AS IT WAS MORE B ENEFICIAL TO HER. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE HERSELF WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME HAS TREATED 3 ITA 2552/ M/10, MRS. ASHA BHOSLE. MARYLAND PROPERTY AS SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY. THEREF ORE, SHE CANNOT CHANGE HER STAND TO TREAT VIKAS ANAND PROPERTY AS SELF OCCUPIE D. HE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN CONSIDERING THE MARYLAND PROPERTY AS SELF OCCUPIED. SO FAR AS THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR A.Y. 2001-02 IN ASSESSEES CASE, DIRECTED THE A .O. TO CONSIDER 5% OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS REASONABLE FOR DETERMINING ALV. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. DID NOT MAKE ANY E NQUIRY AS REGARD TO PROPERTY INCOME WHILE COMPUTING THE ALV OF THE PROP ERTY AT 8% OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION. THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE F LAT AT VIKAS ANAND AS SELF OCCUPIED HOUSE PROPERTY AS AGAINST FLAT AT MARYLAND PROPERTY TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING A.Y. 2001-02 TH E ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED SOP ALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF FLAT AT VIKAS ANAND BUI LDING WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED THE A.O. TO CONSIDER VIKAS A NAND PROPERTY AS SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY SINCE HE HAS DEVIATED FROM THE ME THOD OF DETERMINING THE ALV OF THE PROPERTIES. SINCE ALL THE PROPERTIES ARE UNDER HER OCCUPATION, THEREFORE, MAXIMUM BENEFIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN T O THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE CLAIM WAS MADE BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A), HE HAS OVERLOOKED THE SAME. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY STATUS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED A T VIKAS ANAND COOPERATIVE HSG. SOCIETY, KHAR. 5. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS DONE NO WRONG. HE HAS ONLY ACCEPTED THE OPTION EXERCISED B Y THE ASSESSEE BY CONSIDERING THE MARYLAND PROPERTY AS SELF OCCUPIED. THE ASSESSEE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS IS FREE TO EXERCISE HER OPTION. H E ACCORDINGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 4 ITA 2552/ M/10, MRS. ASHA BHOSLE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF A.O. AND LD. CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOO K FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(4) READS AS UNDER:- SECTION 23(4) WHERE THE PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN SUB -SECTION (2) CONSISTS OF MORE THAN ONE HOUSE:- (A) THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SUB-SECTION SHALL APPLY ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE OF SUCH HOUSES, WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY, AT HIS OPTION, SPECIFY IN THIS BEHALF; (B) THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE HOUSE OR HOUSES, OTHER THAN THE HOUSE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS EXERCISED AN O PTION UNDER CLAUSE (A) SHALL BE DETERMINED UNDER SUB-SECTION 91 ) AS IF SUCH HOUSE OR HOUSES HAD BEEN LET IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF S EVEN FLATS SITUATED AT MUMBAI AND PUNE APART FROM A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT L ONAVALA. THE ASSESSEE, NO DOUBT, HAS SPECIFIED EARLIER THAT THE FLAT AT MARYL AND IS SELF OCCUPIED HOUSE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SHE CHANGED HER STAND AND REQUESTED THE A.O. TO CONSIDER THE FL ATS AT VIKAS ANAND AT KHAR AS SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY SINCE IT WAS BENEFICIAL T O HER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THA T THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE FLATS AT VIKAS ANAND CO. OP. HSG. SO C., KHAR AS SELF OCCUPIED HOUSE PROPERTY INSTEAD OF MARYLAND PROPERTY CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ESPECIALLY WHEN HE HAS CHANGED THE METHOD OF COMPUT ATION OF INCOME FROM SELF OCCUPIED HOUSE PROPERTY BY ADOPTING 8% OF COST OF C ONSTRUCTION AS ALV AS AGAINST MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSE SSEE. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BALMUK UND ACHARYA VS. DCIT REPORTED IN [2009] 310 ITR 310 THAT THE A.O. SHOULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ASSESSEES IGNORANCE OF LAW. SINCE THE CLAIM OF TH E ALV BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE A.O. AND THE SAME WAS SUBSTITUTED BY HIM AT 8% OF THE COST OF CONSTRU CTION, THE A.O., IN OUR OPINION SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE FLAT AT VIKAS AN AND AS SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY SINCE IT WAS MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESS EE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE 5 ITA 2552/ M/10, MRS. ASHA BHOSLE. MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AN D DIRECT THE A.O. TO CONSIDER THE VIKAS ANAND PROPERTY AS SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY AS AGAINST FLAT AT MARYLAND PROPERTY. GROUND NO. 1 BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDING LY ALLOWED. 7. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 2 READS AS UNDER:- THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE OF ` 24,68,715/- BY TREATING THE LOSS AS NOTIONAL LOSS AND CONSIDERING THE SAME AS NOT ALLOWABLE WHEN THE APPELLANT IS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCO UNTING. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE THE FOREIGN E XCHANGE LOSS OF ` 24,68,715/- IS ALLOWABLE AS A BUSINESS LOSS WHILE C OMPUTING PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. 8. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE A.O. NOT ED FROM THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED LOSS OF ` 2468715/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE CO MPUTED ON THE ACCUMULATED BALANCE OUTSTANDING IN HER EEFC ACCOUNT AS ON 31.3.04. ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE A.O., IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE ARISING OUT OF FOREIGN CURRENCY TRANSACTIONS SHOULD BE RECOGNISED AS INCOME OR AS EXPENSE IN THE PERIOD IN WHICH THEY ARISE. THE INCOME AND EXPENSES ARE ACCOUNTED AT THE RATES PREVALENT ON THE DATE OF INC URRING THE EXPENSES OR RECEIPT OF INCOME. IF THE REALISATION OF INCOME IS POSTPONED OR THE PAYMENT IS EFFECTED LATER, THE RESULTING EXCHANGE GAIN OR LOSS WILL BE RECOGNISED IN CURRENT INCOME. THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD II RELATING TO ACCO UNTING FOR CHANGES IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATES AT EACH BALANCE SHEET DATE M ONETARY ITEMS DENOMINATED IN A FOREIGN CURRENCY (INCLUDING BALANCES IN BANK A CCOUNT DENOMINATED IN A FOREIGN CURRENCY) WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE A.O. VARIOUS DECISIONS WERE ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE A.O. 8.1 HOWEVER, THE A.O. WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EX PLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ACTUALLY A NOTIONAL LOSS AND 6 ITA 2552/ M/10, MRS. ASHA BHOSLE. NOT A REAL LOSS AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, HE HELD THE SAME AS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE U/ S 37(1) OF THE ACT. 8.2 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, WHEN THERE WAS PROFIT ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUAT ION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE, THE SAME WAS OFFERED FOR TAX AND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DE PARTMENT. THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. THE SUBMIS SIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. WERE REITERATED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). VARIOUS DECISIONS WERE ALSO CITED BEFORE HIM. 8.3 HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BEFORE HIM AND UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE A. O. WHILE DOING SO, HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING CASH METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND, THEREFORE, OTHER THAN THE MONIES ACTUALLY UTILIZED DURING THE YEAR BY WAY OF EXPENDITURE OR CONVERTED INTO INDIAN RUPEES, THE RE MAINING WOULD BE IN THE EEFC BANK ACCOUNT AS PART OF OPENING BALANCE OR ACT UAL RECEIPTS OF THE YEAR I.E. THE OPENING BALANCE WOULD PERTAIN TO RECEIPTS OF EARLIER YEAR AND THE CLOSING BALANCE WOULD INCLUDE SOME AMOUNTS FROM THE OPENING BALANCE AND RECEIPTS DURING THE YEAR LESS WITHDRAWALS, IF ANY. THEREFORE , EEFC FUNCTIONS WHERE MONEY IS RECEIVED OR WITHDRAWN FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES AND IS ON PAR WITH ANY OTHER BANK ACCOUNT IN BALANCE SHEET. ACCORDING TO H IM, THE NOTIONAL LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON DIFFERENT FACTS AND P ERTAINS TO ASSESSEES OWN CAPITAL ACCOUNT. SUCH NOTIONAL VALUATION BASED ON P REVAILING MARKET RATE IS NOT DONE IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER CAPITAL ASSET IN THE B ALANCE SHEET WHETHER STANDING IN DOMESTIC CURRENCY OR FOREIGN. DISTINGU ISHING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE HIM, HE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE A.O. 8.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7 ITA 2552/ M/10, MRS. ASHA BHOSLE. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRECEDING FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED TO TAX T HE GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE ON NOTIONAL BASIS. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED LOSS DURING THE YEAR, THE DEPARTMENT C ANNOT TAKE AN INCONSISTENT VIEW. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. WOODWARD GOVERNOR (INDIA) PV T. LTD. REPORTED IN [2009] 312 ITR 354 (SC) . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A DIR ECTION MAY BE GIVEN FOR REVERSAL OF INCOME OF THE EARLIER YEAR IN THE IMPUG NED ASSESSMENT YEAR BY TREATING THE SAME AS LOSS OR BAD DEBT. 10. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRIES TO EQUATE THE SAME WITH TRADING LOSS WHICH UNDER NO CI RCUMSTANCES CAN BE ALLOWED. IN THE PRECEDING A.Y., THE ASSESSEE HERSE LF HAS OFFERED THE NOTIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE . HOWEVER, THAT CANNOT OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ENTITLE THE ASSE SSEE TO CLAIM THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE AS AN ALL OWABLE EXPENDITURE. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE P APER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, CONSISTENCY CANNOT OV ERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS OFFERING TO TAX ON HER OWN THE GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE ON NOTIONAL BAS IS, THE SAME IN OUR OPINION, CANNOT PERPETUATE THE CLAIM IN THE FUTURE YEARS FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN EXCHANGE. WE ALSO DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THAT THE EXTRA INCOME SHOWN IN THE PRECEDING YEARS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO B E REVERSED DURING THE YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED TO CLAIM THE SAME AS BU SINESS LOSS OR BAD DEBTS. EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AND THE INCOME OR LOSS OF ONE YEAR CANNOT INTERMINGLE WITH THE INCOME OR LOSS OF ANOTHER YEAR. FURTHER THE LOSS DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE, IN OUR OPINION, CANNOT BE EQUATED 8 ITA 2552/ M/10, MRS. ASHA BHOSLE. WITH TRADING LOSS. THE LOSS ON SUCH NOTIONAL BASIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21.9.2011. SD/- SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 21.9.2011. RK COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) V, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT MC V, MUMBAI 5. THE DR BENCH, E 6. MASTER FILE // TUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI 9 ITA 2552/ M/10, MRS. ASHA BHOSLE. DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 30.8.11, 5.9.11, 15.9.11 SR. PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHOR 2.9.2011, 5.9.11, 16.9.11 SR. PS 3 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS SR. PS 5 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. PS 6 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR. PS 7 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER