M/S. GROWMORE EXPORTS PVT.LTD., MUMBAI V. DCIT, CC-31, MUMBAI

ITA 3732/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7682 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P DANIEL
• Assessee Lawyers: K A SETTI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 234B; 115JB; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, (JM) AND SHRI R.K. PAND A ,(AM) ITA NO.3732/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. GROWMORE EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 32, MADHULI, 3 RD FLOOR DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD NEHRU CENTRE, WORLI MUMBAI-400 018. ..( APPELLANT ) P.A. NO. (AAACG 4939 P) VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-31 MUMBAI. ..( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA AND SHRI K.A. SETTI RESPONDENT BY : DR. P. DANIEL O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL (JM). THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 13.4.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COM PANY IS A NOTIFIED PERSON UNDER THE SPECIAL COURT (TRIAL OF O FFENCES RELATING TO ITA NO.3732/M/09 A.Y: 06-07 2 TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES.) ACT, 1992 AND ALL THE ASSETS INCLUDING BANK ACCOUNTS WERE ATTACHED AND VESTED IN THE HANDS OF THE CUST ODIAN APPOINTED UNDER THE SAID ACT. RETURN OF INCOME WAS FIL ED ALONGWITH UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT DECLARIN G TOTAL INCOME AT NIL. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(THE ACT) AT AN IN COME OF RS.1,29,45,520/- INCLUDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES CLAIM OF RS.1,43,57,933/-. THE AO HAS ALSO COMPUTED THE ASSESSEE S INCOME U/S.115JB OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,29,50,477 /-. SINCE TAX COMPUTED UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IS WORK ED OUT MORE THAN THE TAX COMPUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 5JB, THE AO HAS TAKEN TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,29,45,520/- AND COMPLETE D THE ASSESSMENT ON THE SAID INCOME VIDE ORDER DT.19.12.2008 PA SSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENSES DIRECTED TH E AO TO RE- COMPUTE THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE LIGH T OF DIRECTION GIVEN IN THE ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPE AL. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT( A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE GROUND NO.1 AND 8 ARE GENERAL IN NA TURE AND GROUND ITA NO.3732/M/09 A.Y: 06-07 3 NO.2 AND 3 CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER AND GROUND NO.5 CHALLENGING THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF AUDIT FEE OF RS.15,000/- ARE NOT PRESSED, THEREFORE THE SAME MAY BE DECIDED ACCORD INGLY WHICH WAS NOT OBJECTED TO BY THE LEARNED DR. 5. THAT BEING SO, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTIN G MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ABOVE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THEREFORE REJECTED BEIN G NOT PRESSED. 6. GROUND NO.4, 6 AND 7 READ AS UNDER : 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST E XPENSE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,43,57,933/-. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING CALCULATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB AMOUNTING TO RS.1,29,50,477/-. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S.2 34A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT ARE INCORRECT. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH PARTIES HAVE AGREED T HAT THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE SIMILAR TO THE ISSU E DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS GROUP OF CASE NAMELY M/S. ORION TRAVE LS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.6888 & 6889/MUM/08 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 004-05 AND 2005-06 ORDER DATED 9 TH OCTOBER, 2009 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA-21 HAS RESTORED THE MATTER OF DISALLOWANCE OF INT EREST TO THE FILE ITA NO.3732/M/09 A.Y: 06-07 4 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) , THE ISSUE REGARDING COMPUTAT ION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB HAS BEEN DECIDED AS INFRUCTUOUS WITH A DIRECTI ON THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE AT A LATER STAGE IS ASSESSED ON THEIR BOOK P ROFIT U/S.115JB IT WILL BE OPEN FOR THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THESE CONTENTIONS AT THAT TIME AND WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF INTEREST THE TR IBUNAL DIRECTED THAT THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEA R UNDER APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE SAID COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS THEREF ORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES BEING SIMILAR THE SAME MAY BE DECIDED ACCORDING LY. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RI VAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ISSUES ARE SIMILAR TO THE ISSUES RAISED BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPEAL IN ORION TRAVELS PVT. LTD. (SU PRA). WITH REGARD TO THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST THE TRIBUNA L SUPRA, WHILE FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S. AATUR HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.147/MUM/2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 DATED 13.6.2008 HAS OBSERVED AND HELD VIDE PARA 20 AND 21 OF ITS ORDER DATED 9 TH OCT. 2009 AS UNDER : 20. AGGRIEVED ON THE ABOVE ISSUES THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND REITERATED THE CONTENTIO NS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THA T SIMILAR ISSUES WERE BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.147/MUM/2008 FOR ASST. YEAR 2000-2001 IN THE CAS E OF GROUP CONCERN NAMELY M/S AATUR HOLDINGS PVT. LTD V DCIT. IN THAT CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS A S A ITA NO.3732/M/09 A.Y: 06-07 5 NOTIFIED PERSON UNDER THE SPECIAL COURT (TRIAL OF O FFENCES RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES) ACT, 1992 A ND ALL ITS ASSETS INCLUDING BANK ACCOUNTS WERE ATTACHED AND VE STED IN THE HANDS OF THE CUSTODIAN APPOINTED UNDER THE S AID ACT. IN THAT CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DED UCTION OF INTEREST, DEPRECIATION AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE HELD: AS FAR AS CLAIM OF AUDIT FEES AND DEPRECIATION IS CONCERNED WE DO NOT FIND THE BASIS ON WHICH THE CLA IM HAS BEEN MADE. SIMILARLY IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAY ABLE ON LOANS BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS LEARNED COUNSEL HAS FILED BEFORE US A COPY OF THE MISCELLAN EOUS PETITION NO 41 OF 1999 FILED BY THE CUSTODIAN BEFOR E THE SPECIAL COURT IN WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, CLAIM FOR INTEREST EXPENSES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CUSTODIAN. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE REQUIRED DE TAILS WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO APPRECIATE THE ADMISSIB ILITY OF THESE CLAIMS. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE REMAND THIS MATTER TO THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDER ATION AFTER PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTAN TIATE ITS CLAIM THAT THE AFORESAID EXPENSES OF AUDIT FEE AND DEPRECIATION ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PRE VIOUS YEAR AND THAT THE INTEREST EXPENSES CLAIM RELATES T O THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN QUESTION AND IS A LEGITIMATE BUSI NESS EXPENSES. 21. THE FACTUAL POSITION IN THIS CASE IS ALSO IDENT ICAL WITH THE CASE OF M/S. AATUR HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S AATUR HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. UN DER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEEM IT FIT TO REMAND T HE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF INTE REST, AUDIT FEES AND DEPRECIATION IN GROUNDS 5,6,7, BACK TO C.I.T (A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BROUGHT O N RECORD BY THE REVENUE WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL (SUPRA),SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO SHALL DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED THE REIN AND ACCORDING TO LAW AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ITA NO.3732/M/09 A.Y: 06-07 6 TO THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE A SSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. WITH REGARD TO THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ORION TRAVELS PVT. LTD.(SUPRA) , HAS OBSERVED AND HELD VIDE PARA-22 OF ITS ORDER DATED 9 TH OCT.2009 AS UNDER : 22. AS REGARDS GROUND NO 8, REGARDING COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS BEEN TAXED UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT A ND NOT ON THE BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB. IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE A PPEAL ON THIS ISSUE AS INFRUCTUOUS WITH A DIRECTION THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE AT A LATER STAGE IS ASSESSED ON THEIR BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB, IT WILL BE OPEN FOR THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THESE CONTENTIONS AT THAT TIME. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BROUGHT O N RECORD BY THE REVENUE WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL (SUPRA), HOLD AND ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE REJECTED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 10. WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A, 234B A ND 234C WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ORION TRAVELS PVT. LT D. (SUPRA), HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND, OBSERVED AND HELD IN P ARA-23,24, 25 AND 26 AS UNDER : 23. AS REGARDS THE LAST GROUND NO 9, REGARDING THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SEC 234A, 234B AND 234C, THE ASSE SSEE IS A NOTIFIED PERSON UNDER THE SPECIAL COURT (TRIAL OF OFFENCES RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES) AC T, 1992 AND ALL ITS ASSETS INCLUDING BANK ACCOUNTS WERE ATT ACHED AND VESTED IN THE HANDS OF THE CUSTODIAN APPOINTED UNDER ITA NO.3732/M/09 A.Y: 06-07 7 THE SAID ACT. FROM THE DATE OF FUNCTIONING OF THE C OURT I.E., 1.6.1992, THE DISTRIBUTION OF MONIES IN CASE OF NOTIFIED PERSONS WILL BE DECIDED BY THE SPECIAL COU RT. THE TAXES DO NOT HAVE THE PRIORITY IN SETTLEMENT. EVEN IF A NOTIFIED PERSON HAD WANTED TO PAY THE ADVANCE TAX I T WAS NOT WITHIN HIS CONTROL TO DO SO. HE HAS TO MAKE AN APPLICATION TO THE CUSTODIAN AND ONLY HE CAN PERMIT PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX AFTER OBTAINING APPROVAL FRO M THE SPECIAL COURT. THE SPECIAL COURT IN ITS RULING HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: WHERE A NOTIFIED PARTY IS PREVENTED BY REASON OF NOTIFICATION, FROM DOING THINGS WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE DONE BY HIM UNDER OTHER ACTS OR CONTRACTS. IN SUCH CASES, IF THE PROVISION OF THE SPECIAL COUR TS ACT PREVENTS A NOTIFIED PARTY FROM DOING THAT THING , THEN BY REASON OF THIS LEGAL DISABILITY, NO PENALTY OR INTEREST CAN BE LEVIED ON THAT PARTY. THUS NO PENALTY OR INTEREST CAN BE IMPOSED FOR NON- FULFILLMENT OF AN ACT WHICH A NOTIFIED PARTY IS PREVENTED FROM DOING BY REASON OF THE SPECIAL COURT ACT. IN SUCH CASES EVEN THOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SOME OTHER ACT OR CONTRACT LAY DOWN CONSEQUENCES FOR NON-PERFORMANCE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIAL COURTS ACT WILL PREVAIL. THIS IS BECAUSE IN SUCH CASES THERE WOULD BE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIAL COURTS ACT AND THAT OTHER LAW AND/OR CONTRACT. IN CASES OF SUCH CONFLICT, THE PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIAL COURT ACT MUST PREVAIL. TO TAKE AN EXAMPLE, UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, EVERY ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY ADVANCE TAX. ALL PARTIES WERE NOTIFIED BETWEEN JUNE 1992 TO AUGUST 1992. ALL OF THEM WOULD BE LIABLE TO ADVANCE TAXES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING MARCH 1993 AND FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS, HOWEVER AS SEEN EARLIER, TAXES ONLY UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 CAN BE PAID IN PRIORITY. THESE WOULD HAVE TO RANK AS ORDINARY DEBTS UNDER SECTION 11(2)(C ). THIS THEREFORE CAN ONLY BE RELEASED AFTER THE ENTIRE DISTRIBUTION HAS TAKEN PLACE. EVEN IF THE NOTIFIED PARTY WERE TO MAKE AN APPLICATION TO THIS COURT TO PAY THE ADVANCE TAX, THE COURT WOULD REFUSE IT. THUS MONIES FOR PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX HAVE NOT BEEN RELEASED. THUS A NOTIFIED PARTY HAS BEEN PREVENTED FROM PAYING ADVANCE TAX. THUS, UNDER THE SPECIAL COURTS ACT, THERE IS A LEGAL DISABILITY TO PAY ADVANCE TAX. YET UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT THERE ITA NO.3732/M/09 A.Y: 06-07 8 IS A COMPULSION TO PAY ADVANCE TAX. THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIAL COURTS ACT AND THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIAL COURTS ACT MUST PREVAIL. UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT IF ADVANCE TAX IS NOT PAID, FOR SUCH NON-PAYMENT INTEREST CAN BE LEVIED. THIS OBVIOUSLY ON THE FOOTING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN DEFAULT. HOWEVER A NOTIFIED PARTY, HAS BEEN PREVENTED BY LAW FROM PAYING ADVANCE TAX. HE IS NOT A DEFAULTING PARTY. HE NEITHER HAS NOT PAID ADVANCE TAX BECAUSE OF LEGAL RESTRAINT ON HIM. THE LAW HAS PREVENTED HIM FROM PAYING ADVANCE TAX. IN MY VIEW, IN SUCH CASES, I.E. WHERE THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIAL COURTS ACT AND SOME OTHER ACT/CONTRACT, THE CONTRARY PROVISIONS MUST NECESSARILY GIVE WAY. IF THERE IS THIS LEGAL DISABILITY, THEN THERE IS NO THE QUESTIO N OF THE NOTIFIED PARTY BEING FOISTED WITH THE LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST AND/OR PENALTY. 24. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE PAID THE ADVANCE TAX EVEN IF H E HAD WANTED TO. IT IS A WELL KNOWN LEGAL DICTUM LEX NON COGITAD IMOSSIBILIA (LAW CANNOT COMPEL YOU TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE). ASSESSEE CANNOT THEREFORE BE FOIST ED WITH INTEREST LIABILITY U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C. IN TEREST U/S 234B AND 234C ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO PAYMENT O F ADVANCE TAX AND HENCE IS NOT LEVIABLE ON NOTIFIED P ERSONS. EVEN THOUGH LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A IS REALLY ON THE DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN WHICH IS A DEFAULT COMMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE SAME DEPEND S ON THE ADVANCE TAX PAID WHICH, IN THIS CASE, IS NOT WI THIN THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE INTEREST U/S 234A CAN NOT ALSO BE LEVIED IN THE CASE OF A PERSON A NOTIFIED P ERSON UNDER THE SPECIAL COURT (TRIAL OF OFFENCES RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES) ACT, 1992 AND ALL ITS A SSETS INCLUDING BANK ACCOUNTS WERE ATTACHED AND VESTED IN THE HANDS OF THE CUSTODIAN APPOINTED UNDER THE SAID ACT . 25. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DIVINE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD V DCIT IN ITA NO180/M/2000 DT. 26.6.2001 HAS HELD THAT CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN ADMITTIN G THE APPEAL OF A NOTIFIED PERSON EVEN THOUGH THE TAX ON THE RETURNED INCOME HAS NOT BEEN PAID BY HIM. IN COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION THEY HAD RELIED ON THE ABOVE PASSAG E OF THE SPECIAL COURT. ITA NO.3732/M/09 A.Y: 06-07 9 26. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DIRECT THAT INTEREST U /S 234A, 234B AND 234C SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BROUGHT O N RECORD BY THE REVENUE WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL (SUPRA), HOLD AND ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.2.2010. SD/- SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) ( D.K. AGARWAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JU DICI AL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 12.2.2010. JV. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. ITA NO.3732/M/09 A.Y: 06-07 10 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 2.2.10 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 3.2.10 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. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 12.2.10 SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 15.2.10 SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER