AUCHTELPRODUCT LTD., MUMBAI V. DCIT., CIR.6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3185/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62358 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V V SHASTRI ITA NOS MUM ACHTEL
• Assessee Lawyers: KUNAL SHARM A
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 14A; 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL (AM) & SHRI S.S. GODARA (JM) I.T.A. NO. 3183 /MUM/2011 (A.Y. : 2003-04) M/S. AUCHTEL PRODUCTS LTD., 142 C, VICTOR HOUSE, N.M. JOSHI MARG, LOWER PAREL (W), MUMBAI-400 013. PAN: AAACH 0975 L VS. ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, CIR. -6(1), 5 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. NO. 2649 /MUM/2011 (A.Y. : 2007-08) ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, CIR. -6(1), 5 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. VS. M/S. AUCHTEL PRODUCTS LTD., 142 C, VICTOR HOUSE, N.M. JOSHI MARG, LOWER PAREL (W), MUMBAI-400 013. PAN: AAACH 0975 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. NO. 3185 /MUM/2011 (A.Y. : 2008-09) M/S. AUCHTEL PRODUCTS LTD., 142 C, VICTOR HOUSE, N.M. JOSHI MARG, LOWER PAREL (W), MUMBAI-400 013. PAN: AAACH 0975 L VS. DY.COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, CIR. -6(1), 5 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI KUNAL SHARMA. DEPARTMENT BY SHRI V .V. SHASTRI. ITA NOS.3183, 2649 &3185/MUM/2011 ACHTEL PRODUCTS LTD. 2 DATE OF HEARING 25-04-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30-04-2012 O R D E R PER R.S. SYAL, AM : THIS BATCH CONTAINS ONE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 AND OTHER TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSES SMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2008-09. SINCE SOME OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE A PPEALS ARE COMMON AND THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN, IN FACT CLUBBED, WE ARE THEREFOR E DISPOSING THEM OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. A.Y. 2003-04 (ASSESSEES APPEAL): 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,15,265/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE AS WRITE OFF OF OLD UNRECOVERABLE EARNEST MONEY DEPOSITS DEDUCTIBLE U/S . 37(1) OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE WROTE OFF RS.2,15,265/- AS BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS IN ITS BOOK S OF ACCOUNT. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO JUSTIFY THE DEDUCTION, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THESE WERE OLD EARNEST MONEY DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE O F BUSINESS WHICH BECAME ITA NOS.3183, 2649 &3185/MUM/2011 ACHTEL PRODUCTS LTD. 3 IRRECOVERABLE AND WERE FORFEITED BY THE PARTIES. NO T CONVINCED, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM. NO RELIEF WAS ALLOWED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 4. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WROTE OFF THE SAID SUM AS BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS. IT IS FURTHER THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTS UNRECOVERABLE EARNEST MONEY DEPOSITS, WHICH WERE MA DE BY IT IN EARLIER YEARS AND WRITTEN OFF IN THE CURRENT YEAR DUE TO NON-RECO VERY. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THIS AMOUNT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS. THE LD. AR HAS FAIRLY CONCEDED THIS ISSUE BY CLAIMING IT AS A BUSINESS LOSS. AT THIS STAGE IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING DED UCTION IN RESPECT OF BAD DEBTS IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF BUSINESS LOSS. DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS IS ALLOWED ON SIMPLE WRITE OFF WITHOUT FURTHER PROVING THAT THE AMOUNT BECAME BAD IN THIS YEAR. PER CONTRA, THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS LOSS CAN BE ALLOWED ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE PROVES THAT THE AMOUNT BECAM E IRRECOVERABLE. SIMPLE WRITE OFF, UNLIKE IN CASE OF BAD DEBTS, IS NOT SUFF ICIENT TO CLAIM DEDUCTION FOR BUSINESS LOSS. 5. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT C ASE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE OUT A CASE THAT MANY YEARS AGO, IT GAVE EA RNEST MONEY DEPOSITS TO SEVERAL CONCERNS WITH WHICH IT WAS DEALING. HOWEVER , WHEN THE MATTER WAS TAKEN ITA NOS.3183, 2649 &3185/MUM/2011 ACHTEL PRODUCTS LTD. 4 UP FOR RECOVERY OF THE SAID EARNEST MONEY DEPOSITS, THE PARTIES REFUSED. ON A PERTINENT QUERY, THE LD. AR COULD NOT PLACE ON RECO RD ANY EVIDENCE SHOWING, FIRSTLY, THAT THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WERE GIVEN I N EARLIER YEARS ON ACCOUNT OF EARNEST MONEY DEPOSITS IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS TO ITS BUSINESS ASSOCIATES AND SECONDLY THE SAID PARTIES REFUSED TO REFUND SUCH A MOUNT TO IT. IT WAS, HOWEVER, MAINTAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE STRENUOUS EFFORTS TO RECOVER THE SAID AMOUNT BUT COULD NOT GET IT BACK. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED TH AT HE HAS GOT THE EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD, BUT THE SAME WAS NOT READILY AVAILABLE . IT WAS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO LEAD EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF IT CASE ON BOTH THESE ISSUES. NO SERIOUS OBJECTION WAS TAKEN BY THE LD. DR. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTAN T CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF THE I MPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO. WE ORDER ACCO RDINGLY AND DIRECT THE AO TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO LEAD E VIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM ABOUT THE AMOUNTS HAVING BEEN GIVEN AS ADVANCES IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS AND ABOUT THE SAID PARTIES HAVING REFUSED TO REFUN D THE EARNEST MONEY DEPOSITS. IF THE ASSESSEE STILL FAILS TO LEAD EVIDENCE, THEN THE AO WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS.3183, 2649 &3185/MUM/2011 ACHTEL PRODUCTS LTD. 5 A.Y. 2007-08: (REVENUES APPEAL): 7. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE DIRECTION G IVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A ON A REASONABLE BASIS BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. THE GROUND HAS BEEN TAKEN THAT THIS DIRECTION HAS BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE J UDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVE NUE AND SLP HAS BEEN PROPOSED. 8. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE EARNED CERTAIN EXEMPT INCOME. NO DISALLOWANCE WAS OFFERED U/S. 14A . ON BEING CALLED UPON TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE,: THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T IT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE IN EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. THE AO COM PUTED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A AT RS.15,04,791/- BY APPLYING RULE 8D. WHEN THE MATTER WENT TO THE LD. CIT(A), HE DIRECTED THE AO TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE U/S .14A ON A REASONABLE BASIS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO.LTD. VS. DCIT [SINCE RE PORTED IN (2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM) ]. FROM THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THEY ARE AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE APPLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT I N THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID JUDGMENT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AND SLP HAS BEEN PROPOSED. IN OUR CONSIDERE D OPINION, THE FORCE OF JUDGMENT OF ANY HIGH COURT IS NOT DILUTED SIMPLY BE CAUSE THE AGGRIEVED PARTY ITA NOS.3183, 2649 &3185/MUM/2011 ACHTEL PRODUCTS LTD. 6 PREFERS SLP BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OR EVE N IF SUCH SLP IS ADMITTED. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT REVERSES THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT IT LOSES ITS BINDING FORCE. 9. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE , IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO WORK OUT THE AMOUNT DISALLOW ABLE U/S.14A IN CONSONANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. (SUPRA). THE SAID JUDGMENT ST ILL HOLDS THE FIELD INASMUCH AS NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SAID JUDGMENT HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN EITHER WAY. WE, THEREFORE, APPROVE THE VI EW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR COMPUTIN G THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A IN CONFORMITY WITH THE AFORENOTED JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. ( SUPRA). 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. A.Y. 2008-09 (ASSESSEES APPEAL): 11. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS AP PEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.12,81,496/- MADE BY THE AO U/S.14A AS PER RULE 8D. ITA NOS.3183, 2649 &3185/MUM/2011 ACHTEL PRODUCTS LTD. 7 12. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS YEAR ALSO THE ASSESSEE EARNED CERTAIN EXEMPT INCOME WITHOUT OFFERING ANY A MOUNT DISALLOWABLE U/S.14A. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS C LAIM IN THIS REGARD, : THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXP ENDITURE IN EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. THE AO COMPUTED DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A AS PE R RULE 8D WHICH AMOUNT WAS DETERMINED AT RS.12,81,496/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NO NEXUS WHATSOEVER OF THE INTEREST BEARING DEPOSITS WITH THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE COMPANY FROM WHICH SUCH EXE MPT INCOME WAS EARNED. RELYING ON CERTAIN JUDGMENTS AND CERTAIN ORDERS PAS SED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IN ORDER TO INVOKE THE PROV ISIONS OF SEC. 14A, IT WAS REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED FIRST WHETHER ANY EXPENDI TURE WAS ACTUALLY INCURRED TO EARN SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASS ESSEES SUBMISSION, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. HAS HELD THAT RULE 8D IS APPL ICABLE W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. HE, THEREFORE, UPHELD THE ACTION OF T HE AO IN COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D. 13. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACT THAT RULE 8D IS APPLICABLE W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. PRESENTLY, WE ARE DEALING WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND RESULTANTLY RULE 8D IS TO BE APPLIED. H OWEVER, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT SUFFICIENT MATERIAL WA S PLACED BEFORE THE AO IN ITA NOS.3183, 2649 &3185/MUM/2011 ACHTEL PRODUCTS LTD. 8 SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF NOT HAVING INCURRED ANY INT EREST EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE AO HAS CATEGORICALLY RECORDED ASSESSEES SUBMISSIO N IS KEPT ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER ON THE SUBMISSIONS SO MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 14. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT WILL BE RELEVANT TO NO TE THAT SECTION 14A PROVIDES THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF EXPENDI TURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF T HE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. SO THE REFERENCE TO THE AMOUNT DISALLOWABLE I S THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. IT IS R ELEVANT TO NOTE DOWN THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 1 4A WHICH HAVE BEEN INSERTED W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 READING AS UNDER : (2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOU NT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME WHI CH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT IN ACC ORDANCE WITH SUCH METHOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IS N OT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE I N RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES N OT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. (3) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) SHALL ALSO A PPLY IN RELATION TO A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY HIM IN RELATION TO INCOME WHIC H DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. ITA NOS.3183, 2649 &3185/MUM/2011 ACHTEL PRODUCTS LTD. 9 15. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS IN DICATES THAT THE AO SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT DISALLOWABLE AS PER RULE 8D, I F HE, IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RE SPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE CLA IMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN RESPECT OF EXEMPT INCOME, THE AO IS SUP POSED TO FOLLOW THE MANDATE OF RULE 8D IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTN ESS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. TO PUT IT SIMPLY, THE FURTHER DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A IS CALLED FOR WHEN THE AO IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HAVING INCU RRED NO EXPENDITURE OR SOME AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. SATISFACTION OF THE AO AS TO THE INCORRECT CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RE GARD IS SINE QUA NON FOR INVOKING THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D. SUCH SATIS FACTION CAN BE REACHED AND RECORDED ONLY WHEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS VER IFIED. IF THE ASSESSEE PROVES BEFORE THE AO THAT IT INCURRED A PARTICULAR EXPENDI TURE IN RESPECT OF EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME AND THE AO GETS SATISFIED, THEN THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO STILL PROCEED WITH THE COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT DISALLOWABLE AS PER RULE 8D. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO SIMPLY KEPT THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS ON RECORD WITHOUT APPRECIATING AS TO W HETHER THESE WERE CORRECT OR NOT. HE PROCEEDED ON THE PREMISE AS IF THE DISALLOW ANCE AS PER RULE 8D IS AUTOMATIC IRRESPECTIVE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE AS SESSEES CLAIM IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. IT IS AN INCORRECT COURSE ADOPTED BY THE AO. THE CORRECT SEQUENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, FOR MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A IS TO, FIRSTLY, EXAMINE THE AS SESSEES CLAIM OF HAVING ITA NOS.3183, 2649 &3185/MUM/2011 ACHTEL PRODUCTS LTD. 10 INCURRED SOME EXPENDITURE OR NO EXPENDITURE IN RELA TION TO EXEMPT INCOME. IF THE AO GETS SATISFIED WITH THE SAME, THEN THERE IS NO N EED TO COMPUTE DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE AO IS NOT SATIS FIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITUR E OR NO EXPENDITURE HAVING BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME, THAT T HE MANDATE OF RULE 8D WILL OPERATE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DIRECTLY GONE TO THE SECOND STAGE OF COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A AS P ER RULE 8D WITHOUT RENDERING ANY OPINION ON THE CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWI SE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN THIS REGARD. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO TO RE-COMPUTE DISALLOW ANCE, IF ANY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AFTER DULY EXAMINING TH E ASSESSEES CLAIM IN THIS REGARD. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL , 2012. SD/- SD/- (S.S. GODARA) (R.S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 30TH APRIL , 2012. NG: COPY TO : ITA NOS.3183, 2649 &3185/MUM/2011 ACHTEL PRODUCTS LTD. 11 1. ASSESSEE. 2. DEPARTMENT. 3 CIT(A)-14,UMBAI. 4 CIT-6,MUMBAI. 5.DR,A BENCH, MUMBAI. 6.MASTER FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. ITA NOS.3183, 2649 &3185/MUM/2011 ACHTEL PRODUCTS LTD. 12 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGN ATION 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 25-04-12 SR.PS/ 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 25-04-12 SR.PS/ 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/A M 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/A M 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/ 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/ 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER *