Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2789/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7067 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIDHI SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Capital Gains
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 2789/DEL/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE HONBLE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, P RESIDENT AND HONBLE SHRI K.N. CHA RY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2789/DEL/201 6 (A.Y 2009-10) PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., 4 TH FLOOR, PUNJABI BHAWAN, 10, ROUSE AVENUE, NEW DELHI PAN-AAACP0458J (APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CIRCLE - 20(1), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI. M.P. RASTOGI, ADV RESPONDENT BY MS. NIDHI SRIVASTAVA, CIT DR ORDER PER G.D. AGRAWAL, V.P. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.02.2016 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-7, NEW DELHI. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS STATED B Y THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WIT H M/S FRESENUSKABI (SINGAPORE) PVT. LTD., FOR THE SALE OF RS. 2,44,24 ,377/- SHARES OF M/S DABUR PHARMA LTD., FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 186,8 4,64,840/-. IT HAS SIMULTANEOUSLY ENTERED INTO AN ESCROW AGREEMENT IN RELATION TO THE COMPLETION OF SALE TRANSACTION. THAT AS PER SALE AGREEMENT OF SHARES, THE ASSESSEE I.E. SELLER IS TO INDEMNIFY THE PURCHASER ABOUT THE OUTS TANDING TAX OR ADDITIONAL TAX LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY BECAUSE IT WILL ULTIMATELY REDUCE THE VALUE OF SHARES. 3. KEEPING IN VIEW SUCH AN INDEMNITY CLAUSE, THE ES CROW AGREEMENT MAKES ELIGIBLE THE ESCROW AGENT WHICH IS THE ABN AMRO BAN K, TO DEDUCT A PART OF SALE DATE OF HEARING 29.04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.04.2019 2 ITA NO. 2789/DEL/2016 CONSIDERATION AS DEFERRED PURCHASE CONSIDERATION. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE AGREEMENT ESCROW AGENT RETAINED A SUM OF RS. 14.40 CRORE AND ONLY 172 CRORES WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERAT ION. THE DEFERRED PURCHASE CONSIDERATION RETAINED BY THE ESCROW AGENT WAS PAYA BLE IN INSTALLMENT TO THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- I. RS. 4.80 CRORES ON EXPIRY OF 12 MONTHS II. RS. 4.80 CRORES ON EXPIRY OF 24 MONTHS III. RS. 4.80 CRORE ON EXPIRY OF 84 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ESCROW AGREEMENT. 4. THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE OFFERE D THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 172 CRORE FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN TAX . HOWEVER, FULL FACTS WERE DISCLOSED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE ASSESSE E HAS DISCLOSED FULL SALE CONSIDERATION AND THEREFROM THE AMOUNT RETAINED IN ESCROW ACCOUNT WAS DEDUCTED. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE AMOUNT RET AINED IN ESCROW ACCOUNT HAS NOT ACCRUED AS INCOME. THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE INSTALLMENT OF RS. 4.80 CRORE REC EIVED WAS DULY OFFERED TO TAX. THAT THE ABOVE RETURN WAS FILED MUCH BEFORE TH E COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR EVE N PRIOR TO ANY QUERY HAVING BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD . HE FURTHER STATED THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, T HE ASSESSEE HAS AGAIN OFFERED THE AMOUNT REFUNDED FROM ESCROW ACCOUNT OF RS. 4,80,00,000/-. THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF ITAT P UNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. DECCAN MECHANICAL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIAL P. LT D. 287 ITR (AT) 65 (PUNE) BONAFIDE BELIEVED THAT THE AMOUNT RETAINED IN THE E SCROW ACCOUNT HAS NOT ACCRUED AND WILL ACCRUE FROM TIME TO TIME WHEN IT I S REALIZED FROM THE SAID ACCOUNT. THAT THE BONAFIDE OF THE ASSESSEE IS PROVE D FROM THE FACT THAT IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS I.E. A.YS. 2010-11 AND 2011-12, TH E AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM ESCROW ACCOUNT IS DULY OFFERED TO TAX. THAT HOWEVER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND ADDED THE SUM OF RS. 14.40 CRORES TO THE CAPITAL GAINS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSEE INITIALLY FILED THE 3 ITA NO. 2789/DEL/2016 APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) HOWEVER DID NOT PRESS THIS ISSUE BECAUSE RATE OF TAX IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SUBSEQUENT YEAR IS THE SAME. AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE ASSESSEE REVISED THE RETURN FOR A. Y.S 2010-11 AND 2011-12 AND WITHDREW THE CAPITAL GAIN OFFERED IN THOSE YEAR S ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT FROM ESCROW ACCOUNT IN THOSE YEARS. THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER LEVIED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) ON THE ABOVE ADDITION OF RS . 14.40 CRORES WHICH IS ALSO SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). HE STATED THAT THERE WAS N EITHER ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTS FULLY AND CORRECTLY. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT THAT ANY FACT WAS NOT DISCLOSED OR ANY FACT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FALSE OR INACCURATE. HE SUBMITTED ON T HESE FACTS THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158 WOULD BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE. HE FURTHER STATED THA T THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS BONAFIDE. IT WAS BASED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DECCAN MECHANICAL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIAL P. LTD., 287 ITR (80) 65. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCLOSED THE RECEIPT FROM TH E ESCROW ACCOUNT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS AS AND WHEN THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVE D. THAT THE RETURN FOR A.Y. 2010-11 WAS FILED EVEN BEFORE ANY QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT RETAIN ED IN ESCROW ACCOUNT. THAT EVEN RETURN FOR A.Y. 2011-12 WAS FILED BEFORE THE C OMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THUS, THE STAND OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS BONAFIDE AND CONSISTENT. HE THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE LEVY O F PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED, THE SAME SHOULD BE CANCELLED. 5. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND STATED THAT IT IS CLEAR CASE WHERE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME. THAT WHEN THE SHARES WERE SOLD FOR A SUM OF RS. 186.84 CRORE, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS THE SALE CONSIDERATION ACCRUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GA IN UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION I S NOT RELEVANT WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN BECAUSE IT IS CHARGEABLE ON THE SALE CONSIDERATION ACCRUED OR RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER. THEREF ORE, MERE ACCRUAL OF SALE CONSIDERATION IS ENOUGH FOR CHARGING CAPITAL GAIN A ND IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT IT 4 ITA NO. 2789/DEL/2016 SHOULD BE RECEIVED. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT THE DEC ISION OF HONBLE ITAT PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DECCAN MECHANICAL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIAL P. LTD., 287 ITR (AT) 65 RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL I S NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THAT WAS A CASE OF CONTRACTOR WHO WAS EXECUTING THE CONT RACTS WITH MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. UNDER THE AGREEMENT OF 10% OF THE BILLING AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE BY THE CONTRACTEE AFTER SATISFACTORY COMPLE TION OF CONTRACT WORK WHICH INCLUDED PERFORMANCE TEST AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE. THU S THERE WAS SOME CONTINGENCY WITH REGARD TO RECEIPT OF RETENTION MON EY. BUT IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL IT IS A SIMPLICITOR RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDER ATION ON TRANSFER OF SHARES WHICH WAS ALREADY COMPLETED DURING THE ACCOUNTING Y EAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SHE THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ON THESE FACTS. THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT BENCH IN THE CA SE OF DECCAN MECHANICAL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIAL P. LTD., 287 ITR (80) 65 W OULD NOT BE APPLICABLE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPOSED TO DISCLOSE THE ENTIRE SA LE CONSIDERATION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERA TION IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREFORE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS RIGHTLY LEVIED. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS PLACED BEFORE US. IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS EXAMINED THE CI RCUMSTANCES WHEN THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE FURNISHED THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER:- A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX, 1961, SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT, T HERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 2 71(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE, THE ASSESSEE C ANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORDER TO EXPO SE THE ASSESSEE TO PENALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGI NATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE T HE ASSESSEE CAN 5 ITA NO. 2789/DEL/2016 FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PA RTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRAC T PENALTY, THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE, NOT EX ACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOU S OR FALSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271( 1)(C) . A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF , WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FU RNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 7. REVERTING BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CA SE, WE FIND THAT AT PAGE NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK, IT HAS GIVEN TH E COPY OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH READS AS UNDE R:- CAPITAL GAINS AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EXEMPT U/S 10(38) - 9949965 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ORS WITHOUT INDEXATION (ON SALE OF SHS OF DABUR PHARMA LTD. WITHOUT STT) (MET) LESS: PROFESSSIONAL CHARGES LESS: AMOUNT RETAINED IN ESCROW ACCOUNT AMOUNT NOT ACCRUED AS INCOME (ITAT PUNE B BENCH LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ORS WITH INDEXATION SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S 111A SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ORS 1372138694 26601938 144000000 3442230 -3508952 2703509 1201536756 3442230 - 805443 - 805443 1204173543 8. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION I.E. WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE AMOUN T RETAINED IN ESCROW ACCOUNT AND THEREAFTER REDUCED THE AMOUNT RETAINED IN ESCROW ACCOUNT CLAIMING THAT THE AMOUNT HAS NOT ACCRUED AS PER ITA T PUNE B BENCH DECISION. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAIN T HE SAME CLAIM WAS MADE 6 ITA NO. 2789/DEL/2016 BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AGRE E WITH THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AND HELD AS UNDER:- THE HONBLE ITAT ACCEPTED THAT THERE WAS A SIGNIFI CANT RISK THAT THE RETENTION MONEY MAY BE HELD BACK TO COVER ANY UNSAT ISFACTORY PERFORMANCE AND ALSO THE POSSIBILITY OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSE DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD. HOWEVER, IN THE ASSESSE ES CASE THE FACTS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, AS NO SUCH SIGNIFICANT RISKS LI KE THOSE MENTIONED IN THE CASE LAW RELIED EXIST. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES AR GUMENT AS WELL AS REASONS FOR WITHHOLDING THE PART OF SALE CONSIDERAT ION IS WITHOUT REASON AND MERIT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ENTIRE CO NSIDERATION OF RS. 186,84,64,840/- SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX. THEREFORE , THE AMOUNT OF RS. 14.4 CRORE WHICH WAS PART OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATI ON AND NOT OFFERED TO TAX IS BEING BROUGHT TO TAX AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. (ADDITION:- 14,40,00,000/-) I AM ALSO SATISFIED THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT. HENCE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING INITIATED SEPARATELY. 9. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISTINGUISHED THE DEC ISION OF ITAT PUNE BENCH ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE SAID CASE THE ITAT HAS ACCEPTED THAT THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT RISK THAT THE RETENTION MONEY MAY B E HELD BACK DUE TO UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE WHILE THERE IS NO SIGNIF ICANT RISK INVOLVED IN THE TRANSFER OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED BEFORE US THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AL SO THE RISK WAS INVOLVED IN RESPECT OF MONEY WHICH WAS KEPT IN ESCROW ACCOUNT B ECAUSE IT COULD HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE OUTSTANDING TAX LIABILITY OF T HE COMPANY I.E. M/S DABUR PHARMA LTD., IF IT REMAIN UNPAID BY THE SAID COMPAN Y. THUS THE DECISION OF ITAT PUNE BENCH IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE. HOWEVER BEF ORE US THE DISPUTE IS NOT WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF 14.40 CRORE TO THE C APITAL GAIN BUT THE LIMITED DISPUTE IS WHETHER PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS LEVIABLE ON THE ABOVE ADDITION OF RS. 14.40 CRORE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HO NBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCT PVT. LTD., HAS EXAMIN ED THE TERM INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND STATED WHETHER NO INFOR MATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE, THE ASSESSE E CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN THIS CASE, A DMITTEDLY NO INFORMATION 7 ITA NO. 2789/DEL/2016 GIVEN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IS FOUND TO BE INCORR ECT OR INACCURATE. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SUM OF RS. 14.40 CRORE RETAINED IN THE ESCROW ACCOUNT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM SALE CONSIDE RATION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SHOULD BE TAXED IN THE YEARS IN W HICH IT IS RECEIVED, WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS CLEARLY STATED IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE UNDER APPE AL BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER, MERELY BECAUSE A CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO MAKE HIM LIABLE FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) . THEREFORE ON THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE DECISION OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCT LTD., IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE. WE MAY A LSO MENTION THAT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS BONAFIDE AS WELL AS CONSISTENT B ECAUSE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 010-11 AND 2011-12 WHEN THE INSTALLMENT OF AMOUNT RETAINED IN ESCROW ACCOUN T IS RECEIVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY OFFERED SUCH RECEIPT FOR THE PURPOS E OF CAPITAL GAIN TAX. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECI SION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. HELD THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS NOT CALLED FOR IN RESPECT OF T HE ADDITION OF RS. 14.40 CRORES TO CAPITAL GAIN TAX, THE SAME IS CANCELLED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH APRIL, 2019 . SD/- SD/ (G. D. AGRAWAL) (K.N. CHARY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30/04/2019 SH 8 ITA NO. 2789/DEL/2016 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 29.04.2019 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 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 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 11. DATE OF UPLOADING 30.4.2019