ATUL C VYAS, MUMBAI V. DCIT CC-23, MUMBAI

ITA 4082/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6373 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATBIR SINGH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Non compliance
• Section: 142(1); 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA 4082 TO 4084/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4082 TO 4084/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000, 2000-01 & 2001-02 ATUL C. VYAS, 16, HARDAYAL SOCIETY, 3, GARODIA NAGAR, GHATKOPAR (E), MUMBAI 75. PAN AABPV 5606 M VS. ACIT C.C. 23. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI VIJAY MEHTA RESPONDENT BY SHRI SATBIR SINGH ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DI RECTED AGAINST THE COMPOSITE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 40, MUMBAI DATED 24.4.2010 WHEREBY HE CONFIRMED THE PENALTIES OF ` 40,000/- EACH IMPOSED BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1)(B) FOR A.Y. 1999-2000, 2000-01 & 2001- 02. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE GIVING RISE TO THESE APPEALS ARE THAT THERE WERE VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED BY THE A.O. U/S 148 AS WELL AS U/S 1 43(2) AND 142(1) TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 1997-98 T O 2001-02. ACCORDING TO THE A.O., THE SAID NOTICES, HOWEVER, WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH B Y THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) WERE INITIATED B Y HIM. DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANA TION TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE A.O. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS FAILURE OF THE AS SESSEE, THE A.O. PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY EXPLANATION TO OFFER IN REGARD TO THE NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES 2 ITA 4082 TO 4084/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS ISSUED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PROCEEDED TO IMPOSE PENALTY OF ` 40,000/- CALCULATED @ ` 10,000/- PER DEFAULT FOR EACH OF THE FIVE YEARS I. E. A.Y. 1997-98 TO 2001-02. 3. THE PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE A.O. WERE CHALLENGE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEALS PREFERRED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND IT WAS SUBMITTE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ALL HIS ACCOUNTS AND ASSETS WERE SE IZED ON 18.5.1992 FOLLOWING A SEARCH AS A RESULT OF SECURITIES SCAM INVOLVING SHRI HARSHAD S. MEHTA. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE AFTER BEING INITIALLY NOTIFIE D WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DENOTIFIED, HE REMAINED WITHOUT ANY EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF HIS ASSO CIATION WITH SHRI HARSHAD S. MEHTA. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO THE TREMENDOUS DIFFICULTIES FACED DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE WENT INTO DEPRESSION. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHER WAS DETECTED WITH CANCER IN APRIL, 1999 AND HE WAS REQUIRED TO ATTEND HIS MOTHER. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE NON-COMPLIANCE ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE A.O. THUS WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THESE CIRCUMST ANCES AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE FINALLY HAD ATTENDED PERSONALLY THE HEARING BEFORE THE A.O. AND EXPLAINED HIS CASE, THERE WAS NO CASE WARRANTING IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) . 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE LD. C IT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) FOR A.Y. 1997-9 8 TO 2001-02 VIDE PARA NO. 3.3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE PENALTY ORDERS AND THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE APPELLANT. AS I FIND, THE APPELLANT HAS ATTRIBUTED THE NON-COM PLIANCES TO THE DIFFICULTIES FACED BY HIM ON ACCOUNT OF THE SEARCH IN 1992 AND HIS MOT HERS ILLNESS IN 1999. LOOKING INTO THE REASONS, I FIND THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS 1997-98, 1998-99 DURING THE PERIOD WHEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE GOING O N, THE APPELLANTS MOTHER WAS SERIOUSLY ILL ON ACCOUNT OF CANCER AND ACCORDINGLY, FOR THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANTS INABILITY TO ATTEND THE P ROCEEDINGS HAD A REASONABLE CAUSE. IT IS OBVIOUS, THE APPELLANT WAS BUSY DURING THIS P ERIOD ATTENDING TO MOTHERS SERIOUS ILLNESS AND ACCORDINGLY, HIS NON-COMPLIANCE HAD A J USTIFIABLE REASON. HOWEVER, FOR THE REMAINING ASSESSMENT YEARS, LOOKING INTO THE DA TES OF THE DIFFERENT NOTICES, THE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN, NON-COMPLIANCE EVEN AFTER SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS AND THE SURROUNDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I DO NOT F IND THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE 3 ITA 4082 TO 4084/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS APPELLANT AS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE NON-COMPLIANC ES FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THIS RESPECT, I FIND THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-02, THERE WAS NON COMPLIANCE EVEN AFTER THE DEMISE OF T HE APPELLANTS MOTHER IN MAY, 2001. THIS WOULD INDICATE THAT THE ILLNESS OF THE APPELLANTS MOTHER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A REAL CAUSE FOR HIS NON-COMPLIANCE FOR THESE YEARS. THE DIFFICULTIES FACED BY THE APPELLANT FOLLOWING THE SEARCH IN 1992 ALSO CAN NOT BE THE CAUSE FOR THE NON- COMPLIANCE AT MUCH LATER DATES RANGING FROM 5 YEARS TO ALMOST MORE THAN 10 YEARS. IN THIS LIGHT, THE APPELLANTS RELIANCE ON THE DECI SIONS QUOTED BY HIM IS ALSO MISPLACED. AS I NOTE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY REASONABLE CAUSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY USED HIS DISCRETION. IN THESE CASES, IT HA S ONLY BEEN MENTIONED THAT LEVY OF PENALTY IS DISCRETIONARY. CONSIDERING THIS, I FIND THAT WHEN DISCRETION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY USED, THESE DECISIONS ONLY BACK THE ASSESSI NG OFFICERS ACTION. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, I FIND THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 AND 1998-99, THE NON- COMPLIANCES DO NOT CALL FOR THE PENALTY WHEREAS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000, 2000-01 AND 2001-02, THE PENALTIES HAVE BEEN RIGHTL Y IMPOSED. ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 & 1998-99, THE PENALTIES A RE CANCELLED AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000, 2000-01 AND 2001-02, TH EY ARE CONFIRMED. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) THUS CANCELLED THE PENALTIES IMPO SED BY THE A.O. FOR A.Y. 1997-98 AND 1998-99 BUT CONFIRMED THE SAME FOR A.Y. 1999-20 00 TO 2001-02. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPO SED BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1)(B) FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 TO 2001-02, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERR ED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE FROM THE COPY OF NOTICE FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 ISSUED BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1)(B) ON 20.2.2004 PLACED AT PAGE NO. 12 OF HIS PAPER BOOK AS WELL AS COPY OF THE SUBSEQUENT REMINDER DATED 30.6.04 PLACED AT PAGE NO. 13 OF HIS PAPER BOOK, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE A.O. FOR NON- COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE NOTIC E DATED 30.3.2002 ISSUED U/S 148 AND NOTICE DATED 1.2.2002 ISSUED U/S 142(1). A PERUSAL OF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1)(B) FOR A.Y. 1999-2000, HOWEVER, SHO WS THAT THE PENALTY FOR THAT YEAR WAS IMPOSED BY HIM FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES IS SUED U/S 143(2) ON 8.7.2003, 4.8.2003, 11.10.2003 AND 28.10.2003. THE PENALTY U /S 271(1)(B) FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 THUS WAS IMPOSED BY THE A.O. FOR THE DEFAULTS WHICH WERE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE DEFAULTS WHICH HAD BEEN INDICATED IN THE NOTICE ISS UED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY HIM. MOREOVE R, AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL 4 ITA 4082 TO 4084/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE NOTICE DATED 30.3.2002 ISSUED BY THE A.O. U/S 148 WAS DULY COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING A RETURN OF INCOME O N 22.10.2002. SIMILARLY, THE NOTICE DATED 1.2.2002 ISSUED U/S 142(1) WAS ALSO DULY COMP LIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE BY FURNISHING THE RELEVANT DETAILS VIDE LETTER DATED 1 8.2.2002 FILED BEFORE THE A.O. THERE WAS THUS ACTUALLY NO DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE AS INDICATED IN THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1)(B) FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 AND TH IS BEING SO AS WELL AS CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT THE PENA LTY WAS FINALLY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. FOR THE DEFAULTS WHICH WERE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM DEF AULTS INDICATED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR WHICH PENALTY WAS ACTUALLY INITIATED, I HOLD THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A. O. U/S 271(1)(B) FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 IS ACCORDINGLY CANCELLED. 7. AS REGARDS THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. U/S 2 71(1)(B) FOR A.Y. 2000-01, A PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT NOTICE DATED 20.2.04 PLACE D AT PAGE NO. 8 AND SUBSEQUENT REMINDER DATED 30.6.04 PLACED AT PAGE NO. 10 SHOWS THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED FOR THE DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESS EE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE A.O. U/S 148 ON 7.2.2003 AND U/S 143(2) ON 8.7 .2003. AS IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS I SSUED BY THE A.O. ON 7.2.2003 TO REGULARIZE THE RETURN BELATEDLY FILED BY THE ASSESS EE ON 22.11.2002 AND THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WAS NOT REQUIRED SEPARATELY TO COMPLY WI TH THE SAID NOTICE. AS REGARDS THE OTHER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(2) ON 8.7.2 003 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN DETAILS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT, IT I S OBSERVED THAT THE NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE SAID NOTICE WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BY POINTI NG OUT THE VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING AT THE RELEVANT TIME WHICH RESULTED IN T HE SAID NON-COMPLIANCE. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE ME, A COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NARRATING THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES IS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND PARA NOS. 7 TO 12 OF THE SAID AFFIDAVIT BEING RELEVANT IN THE P RESENT CONTEXT ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 5 ITA 4082 TO 4084/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS I SAY THAT AS A RESULT OF THE ACTION TAKEN AGAINST ME IN 1992 BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE AND THE CENTR AL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS, MY ENTIRE ACTIVITY CAME TO A STANDSTILL AND I WAS R EQUIRED TO PAY FULL ATTENTION TO THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ME INITIATED BY THESE GOVERNMEN T AGENCIES. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ALL THESE AUTHORITIES DURING 1992 WERE CARRI ED OUT ALMOST ON DAILY BASIS. AS A RESULT, I HAD TO RUN FROM PILLAR TO POST GIVING E XPLANATIONS TO THESE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. DUE TO THE SAID PROCEEDINGS, I LOST MY J OB AND AS A RESULT, I WAS LET UNEMPLOYED. IN FACT, I HAD ALSO MADE A DEPOSIT WITH BOMBAY STO CK EXCHANGE FOR ACQUIRING THE MEMBERSHIP RIGHTS IN 1992. THE SAID DEPOSIT WAS MADE BY ME OUT OF MY PAST EARNINGS AND SAVINGS. THE SAID DEPOSIT WAS ALSO ATTACHED BY THE BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE AND NO MEMBERSHIP RIGHTS WERE EVER A LLOTTED TO ME. I SAY THAT AS I COULD SPARE SOME BREATH OUT OF THE SE PROCEEDINGS, I STARTED APPROACHING VARIOUS BROKER FIRMS/ORGANIZATIONS FOR THE EMPLOYMENT FOR MY LIVELIHOOD. HOWEVER, DUE TO VARIOUS PROCEEDINGS AG AINST ME BY THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, I WAS NOT ABLE TO SEEK MY EMPL OYMENT FROM ANY BROKERS SINCE I WAS LOOKED UPON WITH A SUSPICIOUS MIND. I SAY TH AT DUE TO MY INABILITY OF SEEKING ANY EMPLOYMENT, I COULD NOT EARN ANY INCOME FOR ALL THE YEARS SINCE 1995. DUE TO THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, I SAY THAT I HAD U NDERGONE A SEVERE MENTAL PRESSURE AND WAS PASSING THROUGH A DEPRESSING STAGE . I WAS SHATTERED FINANCIALLY, MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY. I SAY THAT DUE TO CONSIST ENT ATTENDANCE BEFORE THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, LACK OF ANY EMPLOYMENT WITH AN Y BROKER AND DETERIORATING SAVINGS FOR MY LIVELIHOOD. I WAS IN AN IMBALANCE S TATE OF MIND IN AS MUCH AS I WAS ADVISED TO GO ON MEDICATION TO COME OUT OF THESE BA D PHASES OF LIFE AND DEPRESSION. I SAY THAT IT TOOK ME ALMOST 5 TO 6 YEARS TO COME O UT OF THE SAID DEPRESSIVE STAGE IN MY LIFE. I SAY THAT BY THE TIME I COULD START RECOVERING FR OM MY DRY DAYS, THE ENTIRE FAMILY AGAINST WENT INTO AN AGGRESSIVE STAGE WHEN M Y MOTHER WAS DETECTED WITH CANCER. I SAY THAT SINCE APRIL 1999, MY MOTHER WAS UNDERGOING SEVERE TREATMENT FOR CANCER FROM VARIOUS DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS ALL OVER THE CITY. I SAY THAT SINCE I WAS NOT ABLE TO ENGAGE IN ANY EMPLOYMENT, I HAD AGREED TO DEVOTE MY FULL TIME ON MY MOTHERS ILLNESS AND ALSO FOR ATTENDING VARIOUS DOC TORS AND HOSPITALS FOR HER TREATMENT. I SAY THAT FOR TREATMENT OF CANCER, MY MOTHER WAS REQUIRED TO GET ADMITTED EVERY 3-4 MONTHS AND AT A LATER STAGE ALSO SHE HAD TO UNDERGO THE CHEMOTHERAPY RADIATIONS. I SAY THAT INSPITE OF ALL THE EFFORTS, WE COULD NOT CONVALESCE THE ILLNESS AND WE LOST OUR MOTHER IN MAY, 2001. I SAY THAT AL L THE TIME, ENERGY AND MONEY OF THE FAMILY WERE SPENT FOR THE TREATMENT OF MOTHER. 8. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE F AILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O. U/S 14 3(2) ON 8.7.2003 AND CONSIDERING THAT THE RELEVANT DETAILS REQUIRED BY THE A.O. FOR THE P URPOSE OF ASSESSMENT WERE FINALLY 6 ITA 4082 TO 4084/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 18. 12.2003 FILED BEFORE THE A.O., I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS NOT A FIT CASE TO IMPOSE PENAL TY U/S 271(1)(B). IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, I CANCEL THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. AN D CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2000-01. 9. AS REGARDS THE PENALTY IMPOSED FOR A.Y. 2001-02 U/S 271(1)(B), IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE FACTS INVOLVED THEREIN ARE SIMILAR TO A.Y. 2000 -01 IN AS MUCH AS THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED BY THE A.O. FOR DEFAULTS WHICH WERE DIFFERE NT FROM THE ONE INDICATED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED ON 20.2.2004 . AS PER THE SAID NOTICE, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) WERE INITIATED ONLY FOR THE ONE DEFAULT C OMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED ON 4.8.2003 U/S 14 3(2) REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH CERTAIN DETAILS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE SAI D DEFAULT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME GROUNDS AS GIVEN IN A.Y. 2000-01 WHICH AS ALREADY HELD BY ME IN A.Y. 2000-01CONSTITUTED A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAILU RE OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(2). MOREOVER, TH E RELEVANT DETAILS REQUIRED BY THE A.O. WERE FINALLY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LET TER DATED 18.12.2003. THE FACTS INVOLVED IN A.Y. 2001-02 ARE THUS SIMILAR TO A.Y. 2 000-01 AND FOLLOWING MY CONCLUSION DRAWN IN A.Y. 2000-01 , I CANCEL THE PENALTY IMPOSE D BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S 271(1)(B) FOR A.Y. 2001-02. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2010. (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 26 TH NOVEMBER , 2010. 7 ITA 4082 TO 4084/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS RK COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 40 - MUMBAI 4. THE CIT- CENTRAL II, MUMBAI 5. THE DR BENCH, SMC 6. MASTER FILE // TUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI 8 ITA 4082 TO 4084/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS ` DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED 18.11.10, 23.11.10 SR.P.S./P.S. 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 19.11.10, 23.11.10 SR.P.S./P.S. 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER. - J.M./A.M. 4.DRAFT DISCUSSED/ APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. J.M./A.M. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. SR.P.S./P.S. 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S. 8. DATE OF WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.