Bellad Bagewadi Krishi Seva Sahakari Sangh Niyamit., Hukkeri V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (3), Belgaum., Belgaum

ITA 264/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1438 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANAND S MARATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAVEEN P GH ALI
• Keywords: Business income; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 56; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2 64 /PNJ/201 5 (ASST. YEAR : 20 12 - 1 3 ) THE BELLAD BAGEWADI KRISHI SEVA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, BELLAD BAGEWADI, TALUKA HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI. VS. ITO, WARD - 1(3), BELGAUM . PAN NO. AAAAT 0640 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAVEEN P. GHALI C A DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ANAND S. MARATHE - D R DATE OF HEARING : 1 8 / 0 8 /2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 8 / 0 8 /201 5 . O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , BEL AGAVI , DATED 13 /0 5 /201 5 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1 THE ORDER OF THE CIT [APPEALS) IS ILL E GAL UNJUST AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 2 THE CIT HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING AUTHORITY AS THE PROVISION OF SEC 80(P ) (4) DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT COOP SOCIETY AND ASSESSEE IS NOT COOPERATIVE BANK AS PER SEC 80(P) (4). 3 THE CIT HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80(P) (2) (D) REGARDING INTEREST RECEIVED FROM BDCC BANK WHICH IS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. 2 ITA NO. 264 /PNJ/201 5 4 THE CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE RATIO OF DECISION BY HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN CASE OF SRI. RENUKA DEVI URBAN CREDIT COOP SOCIETY LTD SOUDATI. 5 THE CIT HAS ERRED IN APPLYI NG THE RATIO OF DECISION OF THE HONARABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN CASE OF TOTAGAR COOP SALE SOCIETY AND DENYING THE BENEFIT OF SEC 80(P) (2) (A) (I) IN CASE OF ASSESSEE SOCIETY AS THE TOTAGAR COOP SOCIETY IS NOT CREDIT SOCIETY. ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS AN D ANY OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE ORIGINAL AS S ESSMENT ORDER AND ORDER OF CIT BE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY BE ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION U/S 80(P)(2)(D) AND 80(P)(2)(A)(I). 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATI V E SOCIETY CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES AND SUPPLYING FERTILIZERS , PESTICIDES AND RATION TO ITS MEMBERS. THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 21/09/2013 DECLARING NIL INCOME AFT E R CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF 1,23,59,578/ - UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) . IN THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, T HE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INTEREST INCOME OF 21,02,368/ - FROM INVESTMENT MADE WITH BDCC BANK AND OTHER NATIONALIZED BANKS, INSTITUTES OTHER THAN COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE INTEREST EARNED FROM BDCC BANK INSTITUTES AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN COOPERATIVE BANK/FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS COULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT INVESTMENT WAS MADE WITH AN INTENTION TO EARN INTEREST . THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE INTEREST INCOME UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT . 4 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANTS ARGUMENTS AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE ABOVE DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION. IN THE CASE OF SRI RENUKA DEVI URBAN DEVI CREDIT CO.OP. SOCIETY LTD., SAVADATTI VS. CIT AND OTHERS (ITAT 3 ITA NO. 264 /PNJ/201 5 5008/2009) THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SRI RENUKA DEVI, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT KARNATAKA RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER VS. GRAIN MERCHANTS CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD, REPORTED IN2004 ITR (KAR) 267 P 742 WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE INTEREST EARNED ON THE DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN ANY BANKING ACTIVITY AND IS EXEMPT UNDER SECTI ON 80P OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENGAGED IN BANKING ACTIVITY AND IS ONLY A CREDIT SOCIETY OFFERING CREDIT FACILITIES AND AGRICULTURAL INPUTS TO ITS MEMBERS. AS SUCH THE DE CISION QUOTED BY THE APPELLANT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 5.1 THE FACTS OF THE OTHER TWO CASES RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE ALSO DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THESE TWO CASES ALSO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED IS UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) AND THE ASSESSEES WERE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING ACTIVITY. WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE THE APPELLANT IS A CO - OP. SOCIETY CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES AND AGRICULTURAL INPUTS TO ITS MEMBERS. 6. IN THE PR ESENT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) & (D). THE RELEVANT SECTIONS READ AS UNDER DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INCOME OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES 80P(2)(A) IN THE CASE OF A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN I ) CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS, OR II) A COTTAGE INDUSTRY, OR III) THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY ITS MEMBERS, OR IV) THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS, SEEDS, LIVE STOCK OR OTHER ARTICLES IN TENDED FOR AGRICULTURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING THEM TO ITS MEMBERS, OR V) THE PROCESSING, WITHOUT AID OF POWER, OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS, OR VI) THE COLLECTIVE DISPOSAL OF THE LABOUR OF ITS MEMBERS, OR VII) FISHING OR ALLIED ACTIV ITIES, THAT IS TO SAY , ------ --------- - ---- B) ---------------- ------------------------------------------- ---- C) --------------------- ------------------------------------------- D) IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS DERIVED BY THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS WITH ANY OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE WHOLE OF SUCH INCOME. 4 ITA NO. 264 /PNJ/201 5 7. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A) & (D). RELIANCE CAN ALSO BE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO - O P ERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD.. VS. ITO (322 ITR 272) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DOING ANY BANKING ACTIVITY. IN THAT CASE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND WAS NOT DOING ANY BANKING BUSINESS AND ADMITTEDLY, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE FELL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) AND (III) OF THE AC T. NOR WERE STATUTORY DEPOSITS REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS REQUIRED BY A SOCIETY DOING BANKING BUSINESS IN WHICH CASE ALSO THE INTEREST EARNED FROM THE DEPOSITS COULD BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF BANKING. NO MATERIAL WAS PRODUCED TO SHOW T HAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT DEPOSITS UNDER THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. WHAT WAS INVESTED IN SECURITIES AND TERM DEPOSITS WITH THE BANK WERE THE SURPLUS FUNDS. THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM SECURITIES AND DEPOSITS EXCEPT DEPOSITS WITH BANKS OTHER THAN COOPERATIVE BANKS WAS NOT RELATABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY, IT DID NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. SINCE EARNING OF INTEREST WAS NOT A BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IT WAS ASSESSABLE AS INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 7.1 THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS DECISION IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO - OP SALE SOCIETY LTD V. ITO (2010) 188 TAXMAN 282 (SC), HAS HELD THAT INTEREST EARNED BY CO - OP SOCIETY ON INVESTMENTS IS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND TAXABLE U/S. 56 AND WOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION AS BUSINESS INCOME U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I). 7.2 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT SUCH AN ACTIVITY IS COVERED BY THE BYE LAWS OF THE SOCIETY AND IT IS PERMITTED TO DO UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO - OP SOCIETY ACT. 7.3 THE FACTS OF THE TOTGARS CO - OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD., SUPRA ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS IN BOTH THE CASES, THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT DOING BANK ING BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 8 0P(2)(D) OF THE AND THE TREATMENT OF INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME ON INVESTMENTS WITH BANKS BY THE A.O. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS UPHELD. 5. BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE NOW STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE 5 ITA NO. 264 /PNJ/201 5 DECISION OF THIS VERY BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF T HE BELGAUM MANUFACTURERS COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE LTD. VS. CIT IN I.T.A.NO. 49/PNJ/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 16/07/2015 , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - 8. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE AT HAND IS NOW SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SRI BI L LURU GURUBASAVA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, BAGALKOT IN I.T.A.NO. 5006/13 ORDER DATED 05/02/2014, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - 'THEREFORE, THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS CLEAR. IF A CO - OPERATIVE BANK IS EXCLUSIVELY CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS, THEN THE INCOME DERI VED FROM THE SAID BUSINESS CANNOT BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID INCOME IS LIABLE FOR TAX. A CO - OPERATIVE BANK AS DEFINED UNDER THE BANKING REGULATION ACT INCLUDES THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT WANT TO DENY THE SAID BENEFITS TO A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A. PRIMARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. THEY DID NOT WANT TO EXTEND THE SAID BEN EFIT TO A CO - OPERATIVE BANK WHICH IS EXCLUSIVELY CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS I.E. THE PURPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT. THEREFORE, AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A COOPERATIVE BANK CARRYING ON EXCLUSIVELY BANKING BUSINESS AND AS IT DOES NOT POSSESS A LICENCE FROM RESERV E BANK OF INDIA TO CARRY ON BUSINESS, IT IS NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. IT IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY WHICH ALSO CARRIES ON THE BUSINESS OF LENDING MONEY TO ITS MEMBERS WHICH IS COVERED UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) I.E. CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING FOR PR OVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. THE OBJECT OF THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT IS NOT TO EXCLUDE THE BENEFIT EXTENDED UNDER SECTION 80P(1) TO SUCH SOCIETY .................................. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHEN THE STATUS OF T HE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND IS NOT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY EXTENDING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF TAX UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT IS CORRECT. ' 9. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY ENGAGED IN DEVELOPING INDUSTRIAL LAYOUTS FOR ITS MEMBERS AS PER THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, ADMITTEDLY, THE INTEREST INCOME OF 6 ITA NO. 264 /PNJ/201 5 RS.16,81,880/ - EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FROM OTHER COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES FROM ITS INVESTMENT MADE WITH THEM BY THE ASSESSEE. NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO SHOW THAT THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENTS AND EARNED INTEREST THEREON, WERE COOPERATIVE B ANKS. IN ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM, INTEREST RECEIVED FROM THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AS DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D). THEREFORE, THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 16,81,880/ - EARNED BY THE ASSES SEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI BIL L URU GURUBASAVA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA N IYAMITHA, BAGALKOT (SUPRA). THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECTING HIM TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 16,81,880/ - TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HENCE, WE CANCEL THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DATED 03/11/2014 PASSED UNDER SEC. 263 OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 . A READING OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWS THAT ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE IS A CREDIT SOCIETY OFFERING CREDIT FACILITIES AND AGRICULTURAL INPUTS TO ITS MEMBERS. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI BI L LURU GURUBASAVA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, BAGALKOT (SUPRA) OBSERVED THAT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS THAT IF A COOPERATIVE BANK WAS EXCLUSIVELY CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS , THEN THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE SAID BUSINESS CANNOT BE DEDUCTED WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT WANT TO DENY THE BENEFIT OF SEC. 80P TO A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK AND THE INTENTION WAS NOT TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF SEC. 80P TO A COOPERATIVE BANK EXCLUSIVELY CARRYING BANKING BUSINESS. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE IS A CREDIT SOCIETY OFFERING CREDIT FACILITIES AND AGRICULTURAL INPUTS TO ITS MEMBERS, IT FALLS WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY AND, THEREFORE, 7 ITA NO. 264 /PNJ/201 5 IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 80P OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INTE REST INCOME OF 21,02,368/ - FROM INVESTMENT MADE WITH BDCC INSTITUTE WHICH IS ALSO A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, HENCE, IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION FOR THE SAME UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT TO SHOW THAT BDCC INSTITUTE S, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT AND EARNED INTEREST THEREON , WERE COOPERATIVE BANKS AND NOT CREDIT SOCIETIES. IN ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INTEREST RECEIVED FROM COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES . 7. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE QUOTED DECISION IN THE CASE OF THE B ELGAUM MANUFACTURERS COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE LTD . (SUPRA) , WE ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON TUESDAY , THE 1 8 TH DAY OF AUGUST , 201 5 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (GEORGE MATHAN) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 1 8 TH AUGUST , 201 5 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT 4. T HE CIT(A) 5. D.R . 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER 8 ITA NO. 264 /PNJ/201 5 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 1 8 .0 8 .2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 19 .08 .2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 19 /08 /2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 19 /0 8 /2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 19 /08 /2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19 /0 8 /2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 9 /08 /2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER