DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. S.B. Packaging Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4130/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7334 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANINA BE RNWAL
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SRI R.S.SYAL, AM AND SRI C.M.GARG, JM ITA NO. 4130/DEL./2010 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2004-05 DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), ROOM NO. 312, 3 RD FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI VS S.B.PACKAGING PVT. LTD. 3 RD FLOOR, VARDHMAN PLAZA CORNER, INDER ENCLAVE, PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AABCS3731Q APPELLANT BY : MS. ANINA BE RNWAL, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SH. ANIL GUP TA, CA DATE OF HEARING : 11.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.01.2016 ORDER PER C.M.GARG, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-X, NEW DELHI D ATED 21.06.2010 IN APPEAL NO. 151/06-07 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. T HE SOLE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER -: 1. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED , IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,52,13,606/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF B AD DEBT. ITA NO. 4130/DEL/2010 S.B.PACKAGING PVT. LTD. 2 2. APROPOS SOLE GROUND OF THE REVENUE, WE HAVE HE ARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US, INTER ALIA, ASSESSMENT ORDER, IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND OTHER DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE (DR) SUPPORTING ACTION OF THE AO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS RELEVA NT PARAGRAPH 2 TO 2.5 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT TH E AMOUNTS WRITTEN OF WAS OFFERED AS INCOME IN EARLIER FINANCIAL YEAR. THEREF ORE IT WAS CLEAR THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM A DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS, IT WAS TO BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE DEBT HAD BECOME BAD AND AT THE SAME TIME IT SHOULD ALSO BE WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY POINTED OUT THAT WHEN THE DEBTS HAD NOT BECOME BAD AT ALL THEN THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ALL OWABILITY OF THE SAME AS BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF SPECIALLY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAIL TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT SOUGHT TO BE WRITTEN OFF WAS OFFERED AS REVENUE AND INCOME THEIRFROM WAS OFFERED TO TAX DURING THE RELEVANT EARLIER FINANCIA L PERIOD. THE LD. DR, FURTHER, DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS RELEVANT PARAGRAPH 4.7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE AS SESSEE WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFIED REASON AND BASIS, THEREFORE, IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE BY RESTORING THAT OF THE AO. 3. ON THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS OF TH E REVENUE, THE LD. ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE (AR) PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD. VS. CIT REPOR TED AS (2010) 1 TAXMAN.COM106 (SC) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID CLAIM IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT A SUM OF RS. 46,95,289/- AND RS. 3,80,80,437/- UNDER THE HEAD REBATE & DISCOUNTS AND MISCELLANEOUS EXP ENSES RESPECTIVELY AND DETAILS OF WHICH WERE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 4130/DEL/2010 S.B.PACKAGING PVT. LTD. 3 FURTHER, ELABORATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AMOUNT CLAIM UNDER THE HEAD REBATE & DISCOUNT IS ON AC COUNT OF CASH DISCOUNT, QUANTITY DISCOUNT IN RESPECT OF SALES MADE DURING T HE RELEVANT FINANCIAL PERIOD TO VARIOUS PARTIES AND IN NO WAY CONNECTED WITH THE AM OUNT WHICH IS GONE BAD ON ACCOUNT OF REASONS INITIATED IN RESPECT OF SALES MA DE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AS WELL AS IN THE CURRENT YEAR. THE LD. AR, FURTHER POINTE D OUT THAT IN ORDER TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE BAD DEBTS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED THE COPIES OF THE E- MAILS EXCHANGED BETWEEN IT AND ITS DEBTORS FROM WHI CH IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY DID NOT RECEIVE THE PAYM ENTS FROM ITS DEBTORS DUE TO WELL FOUNDED REASONS. THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY CONTEND ED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE CONTRADICTORY OBSERVATIONS WHILE MAKIN G THE ADDITION AND THE LEGAL POSITION ON THIS ISSUE IS VERY CLEAR THAT WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS IS ALLOWABLE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF THE DEBT S AS ABOVE. THE LD. AR ALSO REITERATED ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 10.6.2010 PLACED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PARA 2.4 THE AO OBSERVE THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS IT WAS STILL TO BE ESTABLISHED THAT DEBTS HAS BECOME BAD AND AT THE SAME TIME IT S HOULD ALSO BE WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LD. AR IN THIS REGARD SU BMITTED THAT THE AO MISCONSTRUED PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AS ITS STAND TOD AY WHICH STATE THAT AS PER SECTION 36(I)(VII) WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.89, THE C LAIM FOR BAD DEBTS WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH BAD DEBTS HAS BEE N WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FINALLY PRAYED THAT THE REVENUES APPEAL BEING DEVOID OF MERITS MADE KINDLY BE DISMIS SED. 4. THE LD. DR ALSO PLACED REJOINDER TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROV E THAT THE AMOUNT OF ITA NO. 4130/DEL/2010 S.B.PACKAGING PVT. LTD. 4 IMPUGNED BAD DEBTS WAS SHOWN / OFFERED AS INCOME IN THE EARLIER FINANCIAL YEAR AND THE AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY BECOME BAD DEBT AND WRI TTEN OFF DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. 5. ON CAREFULLY CONSIDERED ON ABOVE RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS FROM THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER, WE OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION -: 4.7 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY C ONSIDERED. IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE LD. A.O. HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THE PARTY-WISE DETAILS O F THE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF ALONGWITH REASONS FOR THE SAME AND ALSO SUBMITTED T HE CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE VARIOUS PARTIES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE BAD DEBTS. SHE ALSO STATED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE IS SEPARATELY CLAIMING REBATE AND DISC OUNT AMOUNTING TO RS. 46,95,289/- AND MISC. OTHER EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO R S. 3,80,80,437/- AND AS THE NATURE OF THE EXPENSES IS SAME, ITS CLAIM FOR BAD D EBTS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE APPELLANT FILED COMPLETE DETAILS OF REBATE AND DISC OUNT AND MISC. EXPENSES AND THE PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWED THAT THE EXPENSES CL AIMED UNDER THOSE HEADS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. THE AO HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY ALSO FILED THE COPIES OF THE EMAILS EXCHANGE BETWEEN IT AND ITS DEBTORS ALON GWITH DETAILS SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF DEBT WHICH THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO RECOVER F ROM THEIR DEBTORS. THEY ALSO FILED INVOICES/DATE-WISE WITH COPIES OF INVOICES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE BAD DEBTS ALSO TO PROVE THAT THI S AMOUNT WAS OFFERED AS ITA NO. 4130/DEL/2010 S.B.PACKAGING PVT. LTD. 5 INCOME IN THE EARLIER FINANCIAL YEAR. IT HAS BEEN S TATED THAT ALL THESE DETAILS WERE ALSO FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS BUT IT SEEMS SOMEHOW THE A.O. DID NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME. IT HAS BEEN ARGUED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE A.O. S OBSERVATION IN PARA 2.3 OF HER ORDER THAT AS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVIN G REGULAR DEALING WITH THE PARTIES, ITS CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS IN THE YEAR UNDER R EVIEW IS NOT QUALIFIED. IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE RECORD PRODUCED SHOWED THAT TH E AMOUNT WHICH HAS GONE BAD RELATES TO THE DIFFERENT SALES MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR(S). FURTHER, IT IS ARGUED THAT REGULAR DEALING WITH THE PARTIES DOES N OT DEBAR THE APPELLANT TO CLAIM THE AMOUNT WHICH HAS GONE BAD IN RESPECT OF E ARLIER SALES. IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT SECTION 36(1)(VII), AS IT S TANDS WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1989, READS AS FOLLOWS :- 36. OTHER DEDUCTIONS (1) THE DEDUCTIONS PROVIDE D FOR IN THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE MATTERS DEALT WITH THEREIN, IN COMPUTING THE INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 28- TO (VI) (VII) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2), THE AMOUNT OF ANY BA D DEBT OR PART THEREOF WHICH IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR : PRIOR TO 1-4-1989, THE ABOVE POSITION READS AS FOLL OWS :- SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2), THE AMOUNT OF ANY DEBT, OR PART THEREOF, WHICH IS ESTABLISHED TO HAVE BECOME A BAD DEBT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANC E DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO 01.04.1989, AND THE PROVISIONS STANDS TODAY. PRIOR TO 01.04.1989, IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSES SEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT ITA NO. 4130/DEL/2010 S.B.PACKAGING PVT. LTD. 6 HAD BECOME BAD, WHEREAS NOW FOR THE DEBT TO BE CLAS SIFIED AS BAD, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY TO WRITE IT OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN ITS AC COUNTS. THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE POSITION OF LAW AS IT STANDS TODAY AND ON CBDT S CIRCULAR NO. 551 DATED 23.01.1990 AND ALSO ON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE APEX COURT AND JURISDICTIONAL HONBLE HIGH COURT AND VARIOUS OTHER COURTS WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- T.R.F. LTD. V. CIT (2010)1 TAXMANN.COM 106(S.C.) CIT V. AUTOMETERS LTD. (2008) 167 TAXMAN 286 (DELHI ) CIT V. DCM LTD. (2008) 167 TAXMAN 160 (DELHI) CIT V. NAI DUNIYA (2006) 154 TAXMAN 493 (M.P.) CIT V. MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS (P) LTD. (2007 ) 162 TAXMAN 124 (DEL.) CIT. V. GIRISH BHAGWAT PRASAD (2002) 256 ITR 772,77 4 (GUJ.) A.W. FIGGIS & COMPANY PVT. LTD. V. CIT (2002) 254 I TR 63, 65-66 (CAL.) WHILE GOING THROUGH THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND THE VARIOUS OTHER COURT AND AL SO THE PROVISION OF THE LAW ITS STANDS TODAY AND ALSO GOING THROUGH THE MATERIA L ON RECORD, I AM LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO ALLOW THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION OF B AD DEBTS AND ALLOW THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO A SUM OF RS. 6,52,13,606/ - AND DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THIS SCORE. HELD ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE UNDISPUTEDLY IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HIMSELF IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE AS SESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED PARTY WISE DETAIL OF THE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF ALONGW ITH REASONS FOR THE SAME AND ALSO SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT CORRESPON DENCE WITH THE RELEVANT VARIOUS PARTIES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE BAD DEBTS. THE LD. CIT HAVE ALSO ITA NO. 4130/DEL/2010 S.B.PACKAGING PVT. LTD. 7 NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED COMPLETE DETAILS REGAR DING REBATE AND DISCOUNT AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES WHICH SHOWED THAT THE EXPENS ES CLAIM UNDER THOSE HEADS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND PERTAINING TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL I.E. 2004-05. THESE FA CT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR DURING THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE US. THE L D. CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT THE AO ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS A LSO FILED THE COPIES OF THE E- MAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN IT AND ITS DEBTORS ALONGWITH DETAILS SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF THAT WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO RECOVER FROM THE RESPECTIVE DEBTORS AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED INVOICES / DATE-WISE DE TAILS OF THE INVOICES TO PROVE THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS OFFERED AS INCOME IN THE EARLI ER FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE BAD DEBTS SHOWED TO BE CLAIMED DURING THE AY 20 04-05. IN THIS SITUATION IN THE LIGHT OF PROVISION OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT AS IT ITS STANDS WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.1989 AND IN THE LIGHT OF DICTA LAID DOWN BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF T.R.F. LTD. V. CIT (2010) 1 TAXMANN.CO M 106 (S.C.) (SUPRA) AND OTHER RELEVANT JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI INCLUDING RECENT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. A UTOMETERS LTD. (2008) 167 TAXMAN 286 (DELHI) (SUPRA). WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT WAS CONSIDERED BY HON BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS P VT. LTD. (2007) 162 TAXMAN 124 (DEL.) (SUPRA) AND IN THIS CASE THEIR LORDSHIP REFERRED TO THE CIRCULAR NO. 551 DATED 23.01.1990 OF THE CBDT AND HELD THAT THE AMEN DMENT MADE TO SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT WAS A DECISION TAKEN TO ELIMI NATE LITIGATION WITH REGARD TO ESTABLISHING THEIR LORDSHIP WHAT IS BAD DEBT FURTH ER OBSERVED IF THE ASSESSEE WRITES OFF A DEBT AS TO BAD DEBT WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON HE WILL NOT GET ANY BENEFIT FROM THIS AS BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT WHERE A DEDUCTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF A BAD DEBT WHICH IS IRRE COVERABLE BUT THE AMOUNT OR A ITA NO. 4130/DEL/2010 S.B.PACKAGING PVT. LTD. 8 PART THEREOF IS SUBSEQUENTLY RECOVERED THEN THAT AM OUNT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE R ELEVANT YEAR. 7. HOWEVER, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT THE AMENDMENT OF YEAR, 1989 INCORPORATES ONLY THE YEAR OF ALLOWABILITY BUT DOES NOT DISPENSE S WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE DEBTS HAS BECOME A BAD D EBT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED PARTY-WISE DETAIL, COPIES OF THE INVOICES/ BILLS RAISED AGAINST THE DEBTORS AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNTS WAS INCORPORATED AS REVENUE RECEIPTS AND OFFERED AS INCOME IN THE EARLIER FINANCIAL YEAR. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED COPIES OF THE E-MAILS AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE DEBTORS SHOWING THAT THE CO NSCIOUS AND SINCERE EFFORTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TOWARDS RECOVERY OF IM PUGNED AMOUNTS AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED RELEVANT COPIES OF THE LEDG ER ACCOUNTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE CLAIMED DEBTS HAS BECOME BAD AND THE SAME WAS PROPERLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DUR ING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 8. ON THE BASIS FOR FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE RE ACH TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED BY THE REQUIRED DOC UMENTARY PROOF ABOUT THE OFFERING THE SAME INCOME IN THE EARLIER FINANCIAL YEAR AND EFFORTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RECOVERY AS WELL AS THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE TO TREAT THE AMOUNTS OF DEBTS AS BAD DEBTS. THUS, THE ISSUES IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CA SE OF TRF LTD. V. CIT AND HENCE WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY GRANTED TO RE LIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH TH E IMPUGNED ORDER AND THUS WE ITA NO. 4130/DEL/2010 S.B.PACKAGING PVT. LTD. 9 CONFIRM THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, SOLE GROUND OF THE R EVENUE BEING DEVOID OF MERITS IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18/01/2016. SD/- SD/- (R.S.SYAL) (C.M.GA RG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICI AL MEMBER DATED: 15 / 01/2016 *BINITA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ITA NO. 4130/DEL/2010 S.B.PACKAGING PVT. LTD. 10 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 11.01.2016 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 11.01.2016 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.