M/s Tata Elxsi Limited , Bangalore V. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7 , Bangalore

ITA 3445/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3999 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAMCHAND KHINCHA
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 142(1); 234B; 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3445/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 TATA ELXSI LTD., ITPB ROAD, HOODY, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 048. PAN AAACT 7872 Q VS. THE JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-7, BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI PADAMCHAND KHINCHA, C.A RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 22-10-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-10-2020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST O RDER DATED 19/11/2018 PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) 7, BANGALORE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. GENERAL GROUND 1.1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT P REJUDICIAL TO THE APPELLANT IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. GROUNDS RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 8 0JJAA - TAX EFFECT: (10,51,99,796*33.99%)=RS. 3,57,57,411 2.1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 80JJAA AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,51,99,796. ON FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW APPLICABLE, DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 80JJAA SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN O F INCOME. PAGE 2 OF 10 ITA NO.3445/BANG/2018 3. GROUNDS RELATING TO FOREIGN TAX CREDIT - TAX EFF ECT = RS. 1,61,48,344 3.1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING I NCREMENTAL FOREIGN TAX CREDIT AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,61,48,344 WHICH WAS C LAIMED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW APPLICABLE, FOREIGN TAX CREDIT SHOULD BE ALLOWE D AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 4. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B - RS. 1,42,50,994 4.1. LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: 2. ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF HARD WARE AND SOFTWARE AND DIGITAL CONTENT CREATION. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 28/11/2014 DECLARIN G TOTAL INCOME OF RS.98,28,88,380/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE A CT WERE ISSUED. 3. DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS LD.AO NOTICED TH AT ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.10,51,99,796/-UNDE R SECTION 80 JJAA OF THE ACT. LD.AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASS ESSEE FOR NON- FULFILMENT OF FOLLOWING 2 CONDITIONS: THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE OR PROD UCTION OF AN ARTICLE OR THING AS PER THE CONDITIONS LAID D OWN UNDER SECTION 80JJAA. AND; THE CONDITION OF 300 DAYS TO BE FULFILLED BY THE RE GULAR WORKMEN AS PER THE PROVISIONS DOES NOT STAND FULFIL LED. 4. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY LD.AR THAT LD.AO DID NO T ALLOW THE CLAIM FOLLOWING DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT.LTD REPORTED IN (2013) 33 TAXMANN.COM 465, WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT ONLY NEW WORKMEN EMPLOYED FOR A PAGE 3 OF 10 ITA NO.3445/BANG/2018 PERIOD OF 300 DAYS IN RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR ARE EL IGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 JJAA OF THE ACT. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON FULL BENCH BY DECISION HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) VS. DINESH KUMAR & CO. & ORS. REPORTED IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3327 OF 2007 BY ORDER DATED 5. IN RESPECT OF THE FULL AMOUNT OF FOREIGN TAX CRE DIT CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE, IT WAS OBSERVED BY LD.CIT(A) THAT ASSESSE E HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY LETTER OF CLAIM BEFORE LD.AO FOR ADDI TIONAL FOREIGN TAX. AND THAT ASSESSEE HAD ONLY BY WAY OF WRITTEN S UBMISSION DATED 05/07/2016 FILED THE CLAIM OF FOREIGN TAX CRE DIT SUBMITTED BEFORE LD.AO. LD.CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASS ESSEE DID NOT CLAIM ADDITIONAL FOREIGN TAX CREDIT IN ITS RETURN O F INCOME DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TILL THE LAST DATE OF SU BMISSION AND THAT LD.AO. HE ALSO NOTED THAT, LD.AO, THEREFORE DI D NOT GO INTO THE DETAILS OF THE FOREIGN TAX CREDIT CLAIMED BY AS SESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. 6. HE THEREFORE REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. 7. AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 8. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, GROUND NO.1.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE DO NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION. 9. GROUND NO.2 IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 80JJAA OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.10,51,99,796/-. 10. LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 8 0JJAA OF THE ACT, GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE SHOULD INCLUDE INCOME PAGE 4 OF 10 ITA NO.3445/BANG/2018 FROM AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE MANUF ACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE OR THING. HE SUBMITTED THA T, THE TERM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IS NOT DEFINED IN THIS SEC TION HOWEVER IT IS DEFINED IN SECTION 10(15) OF THE ACT. HE ALSO RE FERRED TO THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, TO WHICH, SUBSTANTIAL REF ERENCE HAS BEEN MADE IN SECTION 80JJAA OF THE ACT, THAT DEFINES IN DUSTRY AS UNDER: INDUSTRY MEANS ANY BUSINESS, TRADE, UNDERTAKING, MA NUFACTURE OR CALLING OF EMPLOYERS AND INCLUDES ALL CALLING, SERV ICE, EMPLOYMENT, HANDICRAFT OR INDUSTRIAL OCCUPATION OR REVOCATION O F WORKMEN. 11. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE TERM ARTICLE OR THI NGS IS NOT DEFINED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THEY MUST BE UNDE RSTOOD WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT. LD.AR PLACED RELIANCE ON DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT.LTD VS ACIT REPORTED IN (2020) 115 TAXMANN.COM 154 , WHEREIN, THE ISSUE REGARDING, WHETHER, EMPLOYEES EM PLOYED IN SOFTWARE INDUSTRIES COULD BE REGARDED AS WORKMEN HA S BEEN CONSIDERED IN THIS CASE WHEREIN THIS TRIBUNAL HELD THAT SOFTWARE INDUSTRY HAS ALSO BEEN NOTIFIED AS INDUSTRY FOR PUR POSE OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, BY STATE OF KARNATAK A, AND THAT, THE EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED IN THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY RENDERED TECHNICAL SERVICES AND NOT SERVICES IN THE NATURE OF SUPERVISORY OR MANAGEMENT CHARACTER. 12. LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, THIS IS THE 3 RD YEAR OF CLAIM BY ASSESSEE AND THAT THE EMPLOYEES AGAINST WHOSE WAGES THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED SATISFIES THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS. PAGE 5 OF 10 ITA NO.3445/BANG/2018 HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT.LTD VS ACIT (SUPRA) REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM TO ASSESSEE. 13. ON THE CONTRARY LD.CIT.DR PLACED RELIANCE ON OB SERVATIONS OF LD.CIT(A) AND PARA 4.2 OF IMPUGNED ORDER. HE SUB MITTED THAT LD.CIT(A) RELIED ON HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 012-13. HE THUS SUBMITTED THAT NOTHING ON RECORD ESTABLISHES T HE SUBMISSION OF LD.AR THAT THIS IS THE 3 RD YEAR OF CLAIM. LD.CIT.DR SUBMITTED THAT DETAILS WITH REGARD TO EMPLOYEES ON SALARY DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80JJAA OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED IN THE PAPER BOOK. HE THUS REQUES TED FOR THE ISSUE TO BE REMANDED TO AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR VERIF ICATION. 14. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SI DES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 15. WE NOTE THAT THE LD.AO DENIAL OF BENEFIT TO ASS ESSEE IS BASED ON THE REASONING THAT ASSESSEE WAS DENIED BEN EFIT AGAINST THESE EMPLOYEES IN THE 1 ST YEAR OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND THAT ASSESSEE BEING A SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IS NO T ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. 16. WE NOTE THAT THE 1 ST OF OBJECTION OF LD.AO REGARDING NON- SATISFACTION WITH RESPECT TO ADDITIONAL WAGES PAID TO NEW EMPLOYEES IN THE 1 ST YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT IS CONCERNED, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS EXPRESSED FOLLOWING VIEW IN CASE OF TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PVT.LTD VS ACIT (SUPRA): 9. WE HAVE GIVEN A VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ONLY REASON GIVEN BY THE AO FOR DENYING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S.80JJAA OF THE ACT, WHICH IS THE REASON THAT SUR VIVES FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE TRIBUNAL IS ACCORDING TO THE AO SINCE THE AD DITIONAL WAGES PAID TO PAGE 6 OF 10 ITA NO.3445/BANG/2018 THESE 287 EMPLOYEES WERE NOT ELIGIBLE TO DEDUCTION U/S.80JJAA OF THE ACT BECAUSE THESE EMPLOYEES DID NOT WORK FOR MORE THAN 300 DAYS IN FY 2006- 07 RELEVANT TO AY 2007-08, THE WAGES PAID TO THESE EMPLOYEES IN AY 2008- 09 WILL ALSO NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80JJAA O F THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS ACCORDING TO THE AO IF THE CONDITION FOR GRANT OF D EDUCTION U/S.80JJAA OF THE ACT IS NOT SATISFIED WITH REFERENCE TO ADDITIONAL W AGES PAID TO NEW EMPLOYEES IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, TH EN THE ADDITIONAL WAGES PAID TO SUCH NEW EMPLOYEES WILL NOT ALLOWED IN THE SECOND AND THIRD ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THIS APPROACH OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS CONTRARY TO THE AO'S STAND ON CLAIM FOR SIMILAR DEDUCTION U/S.80JJAA OF THE ACT IN AY 2007-08. IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE AO FOR AY 2007-08, HE HAS WHILE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80JJAA OF T HE ACT FOR THAT AY, ACCEPTED THE POSITION THAT ON ADDITIONAL WAGES PAID TO NEW WORKMEN EMPLOYED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 20 05-06 WHO HAVE WORKED MORE THAN 300 DAYS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 2007- 08, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.80JJA A OF THE ACT. IN THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF BOSCH LTD. (SUPRA) THE BANGALORE ITAT AT PARAGRAPH 23 OF THE AFORESAID ORDER THE TRIBUNAL OB SERVED THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S.80JJAA OF THE ACT IS ALLOWED FOR THRE E YEARS INCLUDING THE YEAR IN WHICH THE EMPLOYMENT IS PROVIDED. HENCE, IN EACH YEAR IT HAS TO BE SEEN THAT THE WORKMEN WAS EMPLOYED FOR AT LEAST 300 DAYS DURING THAT PREVIOUS YEAR AND THAT SUCH WORKMEN WAS NOT A CASUA L WORKMEN OR WORKMEN EMPLOYED THROUGH CONTRACT LABOUR. THEREFORE , IF SOME WORKMEN WERE EMPLOYED FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 300 DAYS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR THEN NO DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF WAGES TO SUCH WORK MEN IN THE PRESENT YEAR EVEN IF SUCH WORKMEN WAS EMPLOY ED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR FOR MORE THAN 300 DAYS BUT IN THE PRESENT YEAR , SUCH WORKMEN WAS NOT EMPLOYED FOR 300 DAYS OR MORE. BY THE VERY SAME REASONING THE FACT THAT IN THE FIRST YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT THE ADDITIONAL WAGES PAID IS NOT ALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR THE REASON THAT THE WORKMEN D ID NOT WORK FOR 300 DAYS OR MORE BUT IF THE NEXT TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS, IF HE WORKS FOR MORE THAN 300 DAYS EACH, THEN THE DEDUCTION U/S.80JJAA O F THE ACT HAS TO BE ALLOWED. IT IS NOT PROPER TO SAY THAT IF THE DEDUCT ION IS REFUSED IN THE FIRST YEAR OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE NEW EMPLOYEE THEN FOR THE NEXT TWO SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO, THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION WIL L NOT BE AVAILABLE. SUCH AN APPROACH DEFEATS THE VERY PURPOSE FOR WHICH DEDU CTION U/S.80JJAA OF THE ACT IS ALLOWED FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THIS ASPECT HAS NOW BEEN CLARIFIED IN THE FINANCE ACT, 2018 BY ADDI NG A SECOND PROVISO TO THE DEFINITION OF ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE IN EXPLANATIO N (II) TO SEC.80JJAA OF THE ACT. EVEN PRIOR TO SUCH CURATIVE OR CLARIFICATORY A MENDMENT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80JJAA OF THE ACT CANNOT BE AND OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED ON THIS GROUND. W E THEREFORE DIRECT THAT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALL OWED. PAGE 7 OF 10 ITA NO.3445/BANG/2018 17. FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0JJAA OF THE ACT, PROVIDED THAT, SUCH EMPLOYEES FULFILS THE CONDITION OF BEING EMPLOYED FOR 300 DAYS FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION , EVEN THOUGH SUCH EMPLOYEES DO NOT FULFIL THE CONDITION O F BEING EMPLOYED FOR 300 DAYS IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. 18. WE ALSO NOTE THAT, DETAILS FULFILMENT OF NUMBER OF DAYS OF SUCH EMPLOYEES, ON WHOSE SALARY DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE, ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, W E ARE UNABLE TO VERIFY, WHETHER NECESSARY CONDITION OF 300 DAYS STA NDS FULFILLED. WE ALSO AGREE WITH LD.CIT.DR THAT NOTHING ON RECORD PLACED BEFORE US REVEALS THAT THIS IS THE 3 RD YEAR OF CLAIM BY ASSESSEE AS HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AT PAGE 223 OF PAPER BOOK. WE AR E THEREFORE OF OPINION THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE REMANDED TO L D.AO TO VERIFY THESE DETAILS IN TERMS OF NEW EMPLOYEES HAVING SATI SFIED THE 300 DAYS CRITERIA DURING THE YEAR. 19. WE DIRECT ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE ALL DETAILS REGAR DING NUMBER OF REGULAR WORKMEN/EMPLOYEES, NUMBER OF NEW WORKMEN/EMPLOYEES ADDED FOR EACH OF THE IMMEDIATELY THREE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS TO LD.AO. LD.AO IS THEN DIRECTED TO ANALYSE FULFILMENT OF THE CONDITION IN RESPECT OF N EW EMPLOYEES/WORKMEN AGAINST WHOM THE CLAIM HAS BEEN M ADE BY ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80JJAA OF THE ACT. LD.AO IS THEN DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 JJAA OF THE ACT . PAGE 8 OF 10 ITA NO.3445/BANG/2018 ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 20. GROUND NUMBER 3 IS IN RESPECT OF NOT ALLOWING INCREMENTAL FOREIGN TAX CREDIT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,6148,344/- THA T WAS CLAIMED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 21. AT THE OUTSET, BOTH PARTIES ADMIT THAT VARIOUS DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY LD.AO AS THE SAME WAS MADE BY WAY OF SUBMISSIONS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 22. WE NOTE THAT LD.AO REJECTED THE CLAIM AS ASSESS EE HAD MADE THE ADDITIONAL FTC, BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSI ON WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCES. IN OUR VIEW THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE R EMANDED TO LD.AO TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN LIGHT OF EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS FILED BY ASSESSEE. 23. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE TOO IS REMANDED TO LD.AO . ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE ALL REQUISITE DETAILS IN SUPPORT O F ITS CLAIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WHICH SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY LD .AO UPON VERIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29 TH OCT, 2020 SD/- SD/- (B. R. BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 29 TH OCT, 2020. PAGE 9 OF 10 ITA NO.3445/BANG/2018 /VMS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE PAGE 10 OF 10 ITA NO.3445/BANG/2018 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON ON DRAGON SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR -10-2020 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER -10-2020 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. -10-2020 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS -10-2020 SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON -10-2020 SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE -10-2020 SR.PS 8. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON -- SR.PS 9. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK -10-2020 SR.PS 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 11. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 12. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 13. DRAFT DICTATION SHEETS ARE ATTACHED NO SR.PS