SOVEREIGN SECURITIES P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2716/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62551 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 2716/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 M/S. SOVEREIGN SECURITIES PVT. LTD., 5A, KHATAU BLDG., ALKESH DINESH MODY MARG, FORT, MUMBAI-400 023 PAN-AAECS 5874P VS. THE ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VIPUL JOSHI SHRI PARTHASARTHI NAIK DATE OF HEARING :13.06.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.6.2012 O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA (AM): THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT[A] IV, MUMBAI DATED 19/11/2008. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL . 2. GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO THE CONFIRMATION OF DISA LLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.21,56,250.00 ON BSE MEMBERSHIP C ARD . 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE BROKING & DEALING IN SHARES AND SECURITIES . FOR TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 21.10.2005 DECLARING INCOME AT RS.1,72,70,560.00. RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICES U/S 143[2] & 142[1] WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE . DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDING S, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ITA NO. 2716/M/09 2 ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.21,56,250.0 0 ON THE MEMBERSHIP RIGHT IN BSE @ 25 % ON 86,25,000.00 . THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT IT IS HOLDING BSE MEMBERSHIP SINCE DECEMBER, 1997 AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO DEPRECIATION ON INTANGIBLE ASSETS WERE INTRODUCED W .E.F 1/04/1999 , HOWEVER DUE TO DIFFERENT OPINIONS AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMEN TS , IT DID NOT CLAIM DEPRECIATION IN EARLIER YEARS BUT WITH THE DECISION OF MUMBAI INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TECHNO SHARES & S TOCK LTD VS ITO IN ITA NO. 778 , 779 AND 1951 / MUM / 2004 , WHEREIN THE TRIBU NAL HAS HELD THAT BSE MEMBERSHIP CARD IS INTANGIBLE ASSET THEREFORE THE A SSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON WDV FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N . THE AO REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUNDS THAT PRO VISIONS OF DEPRECATION ON INTANGIBLE ASSETS HAVE COME W.E.F 01/04/1999 ON ASS ETS ACQUIRED ON OR AFTER 01/04/1998 AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE BSE MEMBERSHIP CARD IN DECEMBER 1997 FURTHER THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF TECHNO SHARES [ SUPRA ] HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS AN APPEAL IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS BEEN FILED . TH E AO HAS FURTHER DISCUSSED VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TO STRENG THEN HIS VIEWS AND ADDED BACK THE DEPRECIATION SO CLAIMED AT RS.21,56,250.00 . 4. THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT [ A] AND REITERATED ITS STAND THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ON BSE ME MBERSHIP CARD AS IT IS AN INTANGIBLE ASSET . HOWEVER THE CIT [A] REJECTED THE CLAIM AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOLLOWING HIS EARLIER ORDER FOR AY 200405 . 5. BEFORE US THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT ARGUED T HAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING BSE MEMBE RSHIP CARD AS AN INTANGIBLE ASSET . THE COUNSEL RELIED UPON THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TECHNO SHARES AND STOC KS LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 327 ITR 323 WHEREIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID CASE . ITA NO. 2716/M/09 3 6. THE LD DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ORDER OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT RELIED UPON BY THE COUNSEL . WE FIND THAT THE ONLY GROUND ON WHICH THE DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN DISALLOWED IS THAT THE BSE MEMBERSHIP CARD IS NOT A N INTANGIBLE ASSET AND THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN SET AT REST BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TECHNO SHARES [ SUPRA ] WHEREIN THE APEX COURT HAS THUS HELD : REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT, ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE BSE RULES, THAT THE RIGHT OF M EMBERSHIP WAS A 'BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHT' AND COULD BE SAID TO BE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES IN T ERMS OF SECTION 32(1)(II). THE RIGHT OF MEMBERSHIP, WHICH I NCLUDED THE RIGHT OF NOMINATION, WAS A 'LICENCE' OR 'AKIN TO A LICENCE' WHICH WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS WHICH FELL IN SECTION 32(1)(II ). THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MARKET HAD AN ECONOMIC AND MONEY VALUE. IT WAS AN EXPENSE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH SATIS FIED THE TEST OF BEING A 'LICENCE' OR 'ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHT OF SIMILAR NATURE' IN TERMS OF SECTION 32(1)( II). (THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT INDICATED THAT THIS DEC ISION WAS STRICTLY CONFINED TO THE RIGHT OF MEMBERSHIP CONFERRED BY TH E BSE MEMBERSHIP CARD.) RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON BSE MEMBERSH IP CARD. THEREBY REVERSING THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT [ A] , GROUND NO .1 IS ALLOWED . 8. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2 03479.00 BY TREATING COMPUTER SOFTWARE EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL EXPENDITUR E. 9. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.5,08,698.00 IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON PURCHASES OF SOFTWARES . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED WHY THIS EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TO WHI CH THE ASSESSEE REPLIED ITA NO. 2716/M/09 4 THAT NO ENDURING BENEFIT IS BEING DERIVED BY THE CO MPANY BY THE PURCHASE OF THE SOFTWARE THEREFORE THE CLAIM AS REVENUE EXPENDI TURE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND ANY FAV OUR FROM THE AO WHO, RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT V/S ARAWALI CONSTRUCTION CO [P] LTD 259 ITR 30 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SOFTWARE EXPENDITURE ARE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITUR E AND ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM AS REVENU E EXPENDITURE AND ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 60 % AND ADDED BACK RS. 2,03 ,479.00 TO THE RETURNED INCOME. 10. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFO RE THE CIT [ A ] BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS .THE CIT [ A ] DISMISSED THIS G ROUND HOLDING THAT WITH THE AMENDMENT IN THE INCOME TAX ACT NOW SOFTWARE AR E ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AND AS THE AO HAS ALREADY ALLOWED DEPR ECIATION THE ACTION OF THE AO IS CORRECT . 11. THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGU ED THAT BY PURCHASE OF THE SOFTWARE NO ENDURING BENEFIT HAS BEEN DERIVED B Y THE COMPANY AND THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE COUNSEL RELIED UPON THE DECISION REPORTED IN 111 ITD 112 BY SPECIAL BENCH OF INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , DELHI . 12. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES . 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISIO N RELIED UPON BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE . WE FIND THAT THE SPECIAL BENCH OF INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , DELHI IN THE CASE OF AMWAY IND IA ENTERPRISES V/S DY. CIT 111 ITD 112 HAS APPLIED THE FUNCTIONAL TEST FOR DEC IDING WHETHER EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SOFTWARE IS CAPITAL OR REVENUE . THE TR IBUNAL THUS HELD ONCE THE TESTS OF OWNERSHIP AND ENDURING BENEFIT ARE SATISFIED, THE QUESTION WHETHER EXPENDITURE INCURRE D ON COMPUTER SOFTWARE IS CAPITAL OR REVENUE HAS TO BE S EEN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ITS UTILITY TO A BUSINESSMAN AND H OW IMPORTANT ITA NO. 2716/M/09 5 AN ECONOMIC OR FUNCTIONAL ROLE IT PLAYS IN HIS BUSI NESS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE FUNCTIONAL TEST BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT A ND RELEVANT BECAUSE OF THE PECULIAR NATURE OF THE COMP UTER SOFTWARE AND ITS POSSIBLE USE IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF BUSINESS TOUCHING EITHER CAPITAL OR REVENUE FIELD O R ITS UTILITY TO A BUSINESSMAN WHICH MAY TOUCH EITHER CAP ITAL OR REVENUE FIELD. HAVING LAID DOWN THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE N ATURE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACQUISITION OF SOFTWARE, WH ETHER CAPITAL OR REVENUE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THESE CRITERIA NEE D TO BE APPLIED TO DETERMINE THE EXACT NATURE OF EXPENDITURE INCURR ED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THE PRESENT CASES FOR ACQUIRING DIFFER ENT SOFTWARES. SINCE THIS EXERCISE IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE IN RESPE CT OF EACH AND EVERY SOFTWARE INDEPENDENTLY HAVING REGARD TO THE C RITERIA LAID DOWN ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER NEED S TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DOING SUCH EXERCISE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE Q UESTION WHETHER EXPENDITURE ON COMPUTER SOFTWARE IS CAPITAL OR REVE NUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN ABOVE AFTER GIVING AN OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEES. IF ON SUCH EXAMINATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENDITUR E IS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, THEN THE QUESTION REGARDING ALLOWING D EPRECIATION WILL BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES LAID D OWN IN THE SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPHS. 14. WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO THE AO MU ST FIRST DETERMINE THE FUNCTIONS OF THE SOFTWARE PURCHASED VIS--VIS BUSIN ESS REQUIREMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE WHETHER THE SOFTWARE EXPENSES ARE REVENUE OR CAPITAL IN NATURE AND IF THE AO STILL FINDS THAT THE EXPENSES ARE OF CAPITAL IN NATURE THAN NOTHING MORE IS TO BE DONE AS HE HIM SELF HAS ALLOWED DEPRECIATION. THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FI LES OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE FUNCTIONS OF THE SOFTWARE WITH THE NATURE OF REQUIREMENT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE N DECIDE WHETHER IT IS REVENUE OR CAPITAL IN NATURE IN LIGHT OF THE FINDIN GS OF THE SPECIAL BENCH CASE CITED HERE IN ABOVE . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 15. GROUND NO 3 IS NOT PRESSED BY THE COUNSEL APPEA RING FOR THE ASSESSEE HENCE IT IS DISMISSED . ITA NO. 2716/M/09 6 16. GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 25, 16,280.00 BEING BUSINESS EXPENDITURE OF SERVICE CHARGES PAID BY THE APPELLANT TO M/S SOVEREIGN GLOBAL FINANCE PVT LTD . 17. FACTS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUG GEST THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SERV ICE CHARGES TO THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS : 1. SOVEREIGN GLOBAL FINANCE PVT LTD RS. 2516280.00 2. STOCK GUARDIAN INDIA PVT LTD RS. 219000.00 3. NSE IT RS. 5000.00 TOTAL RS 4357840.00 18. THE AO SOUGHT EXPLANATION REGARDING ABOVE PAYME NTS AND IN PARTICULAR PAYMENTS TO SOVEREIGN GLOBAL FINANCE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THIS PAYMENT IS MADE TO TAKE OVER THE CLIENTELE BUSINESS OF THE SAID COMPANY PURSUANT TO THE SEBI REGULATIONS. IT WAS NOTHING BU T COMPENSATION FOR LOSS INCURRED BY THE SAID COMPANY FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS. TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM ASSESSEE FILED THE COPY OF MOU WHICH IS EXHIBITED A T PARA 7.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE . THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJ ECTED BY THE AO WHO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT IN AN Y WAY RELATED TO THE RENDERING OF SERVICES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE EA RLIER AND NO SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THE SAID COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY THEREFORE PAYMENTS MADE TO THIS ARE NOT WHOLLY INCURRED FOR T HE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THE AO ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT OF RS .25,16,280.00 19. THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT [A] BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS . THE LD CIT [A] THUS HELD : THUS , IT IS ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS THAT THE MOU IS N OT RELATED TO RENDERING OF SERVICE BUT ONLY WITH A VIE W TO REDUCE THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND AVOID PA YMENT OF TAX IN THE ASSOCIATED CONCERN . THE PAYMENT OF SERVICE CHA RGES BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO SOVEREIGN GLOBAL FINANCE PVT LT D IS NOT AT ALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS BUT ONLY WITH A VIEW TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAX BY SOVEREIGN GLOBAL FINANCE PVT LTD [ SGFPL ] OR BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.25,16,280.00. ITA NO. 2716/M/09 7 20. BEFORE US THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED T HAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT CORRECT ON THE FACTS OF T HE CASE . THE COUNSEL EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PURCHASED T HE CLIENTELE BUSINESS OF SGFPL AND AS PER MOU IT HAS TO PAY RS.2,00,000.0 0 PER MONTH FOR 24 MONTHS AND THIS BEING A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY SHOUL D BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINE SS . LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED T HAT EVEN IF SUCH PAYMENT IS CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS, IT IS NOTHING BUT A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES . THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE SAI D MOU SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS AGREED TO PAY RUPEES TWO LACS PER MONTH FOR TWENTY FOUR MONTHS FOR THE TRANSFER OF ALL THE CLIENTS OF SGFPL TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IN ITSELF SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY HAS PURCHASED ENTIRE CLIENTELE BUSINESS OF SGFPL . CLAUSE 6 OF TH E SAID MOU READS AS UNDER: ( 6 ) SSPL TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY ADVANCES TO SGFPL AS AND WHEN REQUIRED TO ENSURE SMOOTH TRANSITION FOR SGFPL . SU CH FUNDS WILL NOT CARRY INTEREST . 22. A PLAIN AND SIMPLE READING OF THIS CLAUSE SHOW THAT THE APPELLANTS INTENTION IS TO PURCHASE THE BUSINESS OF SGFPL BY P URCHASING THE ENTIRE CLIENTELE OF THE SAID COMPANY . HERE IT WOULD BE PE RTINENT TO NOTE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT [A] THAT BOTH THE COMPANIES ARE INTER LINKED , SHARES THE ,SAME ADDRESS , SAME TELEPHONE NUMBERS AND SAME FAX NUMBER . THIS ALSO SUGGEST THAT BY THE SAID MOU THE APPELLANT HAS ACTU ALLY PURCHASED THE BUSINESS OF THE SGFPL. 23. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW PAYMENTS MADE TO SGFP L FOR PURCHASE OF ITS CLIENTELE BUSINESS CAN BE TERMED AS SERVICE CHA RGES AS NO SERVICES HAVE ITA NO. 2716/M/09 8 BEEN PROVIDED BY THE SAID COMPANY EXCEPT TRANSFERRI NG ITS ENTIRE CLIENTELE AS PER MOU. 24. WE MAY AGREE WITH SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL TH AT THE PAYMENT IS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS BUT WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT IS OF CAPITAL IN NATURE AND DESERVES TO BE ADDED BACK TO THE RETURNED INCOME . 25. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY POINTED OU T THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ASSESSMENT, SAID PAYMENT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS NO ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THIS A CCOUNT . THIS WILL NOT CHANGE OUR VIEW AND LAW WILL TAKE ITS OWN COURSE FO R THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ASSESSMENT. 26. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE WITH MODIF ICATION THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS OF CAPITAL IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY GR OUND NO. 4 IS DISMISSED. 27. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF JUNE,2012 SD/- SD/- (B.R. MITTAL) (N.K. BILLAIYA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 22 ND JUNE, 2012 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR I BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI ITA NO. 2716/M/09 9 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON: 18.06.2012 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 19.06.2012 SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: SR. PS/PS 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: SR. PS/PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: