Prathamik krishi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit., Raibag V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Belgaum., Belagavi

ITA 278/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2226 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESH S MUTAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S V HALBHAVI
• Keywords: 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 7 8/PNJ/201 5 (ASST. YEAR : 20 12 - 1 3 ) PRATHAMIK KRISHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT, HARUGERI, TALUK RAIB A G, DIST. BELAGAVI. VS. IT O , WARD - 2(2), BELA GAVI. PAN NO. AAAAP 1343 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S.V. HALBHAVI C A DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAMESH S. MUTAGAR - D R DATE OF HEARING : 07 / 0 9 /2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 / 0 9 /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) , BELA GAVI , DATED 13 /0 5 /201 5 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF 2102368/ - U/S 80P(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT PROPERLY VERIFYING THE FACTS AND APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P(2). 1.1. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS NOT CONSIDER ED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A) AND NOT U/S 80P(2)(D) FOR THE SAID AMOUNT OF 2102368/ - 1.2. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND LEGAL ASPECTS DETAILED IN ASSESSES WRITTEN SUBMISSION VIDE LETTER DTD. 18/07/2014. 1.3. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS WRONGLY INTERPRETED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P(2)(D) BY NOT TREATING INVESTEES I.E. 2 ITA NO. 278 /PNJ/201 5 BELGAUM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK AS COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES. 1.4. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS WRONGLY INTERPRETED THE DEFINITION OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETY VIDE SECTION 2(19) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY TREATING THOSE ENTITIES WHICH ARE REGISTERED UNDER THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1912 (2 OF 1912), OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE IN ANY STATE FOR THE REGISTRATION OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, AS NOT BEING COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES. 1.5. THE LD AC. HAS GROSSLY DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80P(2)(D) WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY PROPER REASON AND WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT IN THIS PARTIC ULAR ISSUE. 2. THE AC IS ALSO NOT CORRECT IN INITIATING PENAL PROVISIONS U/S 271 (1) (C) OF IT ACT 1961 THOUGH THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT / FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. ANY OTHER GROUNDS WHICH MAY BE RAISED DURING APPEAL HEARING WITH K IND PERMISSION. 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES AND AGRICULTURAL INPUTS TO ITS MEMBERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27/09/2012 DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF 50,02,083/ - UNDER SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I). IN THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, THE 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 O BSERVED 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 DISA LLOWED 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: - 3 ITA NO. 278 /PNJ/201 5 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 5008/2009) THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE D IFFERENT 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, R EPORTED 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 SECTION 80P OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. IN THE P RESENT 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 DECISION QUOTED BY THE APPELLANT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 5.1 THE FA CTS 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 PRESENT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) & (D). THE R ELEVANT 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 C OTTAGE 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 INTENDED 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 ACTIVITIES, THAT IS TO SAY, -------------------- B) --------------------------------------------------------------- C) ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4 ITA NO. 278 /PNJ/201 5 D) IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS DERIVED BY THE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM ITS INVESTMENTS WITH A NY OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THE WHOLE OF SUCH INCOME. 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 C O - OPERATIVE 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 ACT. 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 THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS AUTHORIZED TO ACC EPT 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 RE LATABLE 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 INCOME 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 BUSINE SS 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 SAL E SOCIETY LTD., SUPRA ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS IN BOTH THE CASES, THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT DOING BANKING BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(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 ITA NO. 278 /PNJ/201 5 5. BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE NOW STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF THIS VERY BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE 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 BILLURU 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 DERIVED 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 DEFINE D 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. PRI MARY CO - OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK. THEY DID NOT WANT TO EXTEND THE SAID BENEFIT 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 COOPERA TIVE BANK CARRYING ON EXCLUSIVELY BANKING BUSINESS AND AS IT DOES NOT POSSESS A LICENCE FROM RESERVE 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 PROVIDING 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 THE 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 6 ITA NO. 278 /PNJ/201 5 FROM PAY MENT 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 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 ASSESS EE MADE INVESTMENTS AND EARNED INTEREST THEREON, WERE COOPERATIVE BANKS. 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). TH EREFORE, THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 16,81,880/ - EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE 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 CO URT IN THE CASE OF SRI BILLURU GURUBASAVA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, 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 APPEAL 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 SUP PLYING RATION TO ITS MEMBERS. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI BILLURU 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 PRIMAR Y AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK AND THE INTENTION WAS NOT TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF 7 ITA NO. 278 /PNJ/201 5 SEC. 80P TO A COOPERATIVE BANK EXCLUSIVELY CARRYING BANKING BUSINESS. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, 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, IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 80P OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSE E HAS EARNED INTEREST 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 T O SHOW THAT BDCC INSTITUTES, 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 CLA IM 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 BELGAUM MANUFACTURERS COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE LTD . (SUPRA), WE ALLOW TH E 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 MONDAY , THE 07 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 201 5 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (GEORGE MATHAN) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 07 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 5 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5.T HE D.R . 6. GUARD FILE. 8 ITA NO. 278 /PNJ/201 5 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 07 .0 9 .2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 07.09 .2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 07 /0 9 /2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 07 /0 9 /2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 07 /0 9 /2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07 /0 9 /2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 07 /0 9 /2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER