M/s. Pooran Singh, Delhi V. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 4289/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7738 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 03-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMAN KANT GARG
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA; SOMIL AGRAWAL ADVS
• Keywords: Capital asset; Question of law; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Procedural lapse; Assessment record; Block assessment; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 54B; 54F; 147; 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 1545 &4289/DEL/2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-1545/DEL/2012 & ITA NO. 4289/DEL/2012 (ASSESSM ENT YEAR-2007-08) POORAN SINGH C/O. K. L. ANEJA, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO. 92C/BW/SB, SHALIMAR BAGH NEW DELHI BANPS196B (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-1, SHAMLI, DISTT. MUZAFFARNAGAR UTTAR PRADESH (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY DR. RAKESH GUPTA & SH. SOMIL AGRAWAL, ADVS. RESPONDENT BY SH. RAMAN KANT GARG, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 13/12/2011 AND 11.06.2012 PASSED BY CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR. DATE OF HEARING 03.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.05.2016 2 ITA NOS. 1545 &4289/DEL/2012 2. ITA NO. 1545/DEL/2012 IS CONTESTED BY ASSESSEE S OUGHT ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, VIDEE APP LICATION DATED 26/2/2015. THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS ADMITTED ON 29/10/2015. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER FRA MED BY LD. A.O ON THE GROUND THAT NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS NO T BEEN ISSUED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING A ND THUS ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW. ITA NO. 4289/DEL/2012 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE PENALTY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(C). 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2015 DATED 24/11/2005. IN RESPECT O F SAID APPLICATION, THE ITO GAVE THE REPLY ITO/ CHIEF PUBL IC INFORMATION OFFICER(CPIO) GAVE THE INFORMATION VIDE LETTER DATE D 8/12/2005 IN THE SAID LETTER, IT WAS STATED THAT:- (I) A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CASE FOR A.Y 2007-08 IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH ORIGINAL CASE RECORD. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FR OM AGRICULTURE AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. RETURN DEC LARING INCOME AT RS.79,370/- ALONG WITH AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS .3,50,000/- WAS FILED ON 30/9/2008. SUBSEQUENTLY THE A.O INITI ATED ACTION U/S 147 BY WAY OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE AC T. 3 ITA NOS. 1545 &4289/DEL/2012 5. THE ASSESSEE AFTER INSPECTING THE RECORDS ALSO R AISED OBJECTION AGAINST ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS 76 YEARS OF AGE AND HAD BEEN R EGULARLY FILING RETURN OF INCOME FOR LAST SEVERAL YEARS AND WAS REG ULARLY SHOWING AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPAR TMENT. THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS RECEIVED THROUGH WILL OF HIS LATE FATHER LONG TIME BACK. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 W AS ISSUED BY THE THEN A.O WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER THE LAW AND ON PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY IN AS MUCH AS NO ATTEMP T HAD EVER BEEN MADE TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH IN THE ALLEGED COMPLAINT WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OWN ANY RESIDEN TIAL HOUSE IN SHAMLI AND WAS EARNING HUGE MONEY FROM AGRICULTURE, NOR THERE WAS ANY DOCUMENT ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THERE HA D BEEN ANY ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE COMPLAIN T. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S 148 DUE TO MERE CHANGE OF OPINION AND JUST TO GET THE CASE UNDER SCRUTINY, DE SPITE NORMAL TIME FOR SCRUTINY HAVING LAPSED. IT WAS PRAYED THAT LEG ALITY OF THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BE DECIDED SO AS TO AVOI D CONTINUITY OF LITIGATION AND VALUABLE TIME OF THE DEPARTMENTAL AU THORITIES AS WELL AS OF THE PROFESSIONALS. THE A.O DISPOSED OFF THE OBJECTIONS VIDE LETTER DATED 11/11/2010. ACCORDING TO THE A.O NOTI CE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CA PITAL GAIN AT RS.56,34,965/- AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,85,000/-WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S 54B OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE O F AGRICULTURAL LAND. AS PER SECTION 54B THE EXEMPTION WAS ALLOWABL E FROM TRANSFER 4 ITA NOS. 1545 &4289/DEL/2012 OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND WHICH IN THE TWO YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE WAS BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE OR A PARENT OF HIS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. SINCE THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SOLD IN SMALL PLOTS TO DIF FERENT PERSONS AND AS SUCH THE LAND WAS NOT BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURA L PURPOSES IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH TRANSFER TO OK PLACE AND THEREFORE EXEMPTION U/S 54B WAS NOT ALLOWABLE TO TH E ASSESSEE AND TO THAT EXTENT OF RS.17, 85,000/-, THERE WAS ESCAPE MENT OF INCOME BY OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. FURTHER, THERE WAS INFOR MATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE WRONG CLAIM O F EXEMPTION OF RS.14,19,000/- BEING COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON PLOT IN MOHALLA PANARISAN, SHAMLI WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING HOUSE THERE. 6. THE A.O HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.14,19,000/- IN RESPECT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F AND RS.17,85,000/- IN RESPECT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54B. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A PPEALS). THE CIT (A) UPHELD THE ORDER. ON THE ISSUE OF NON-ISSUA NCE OF NOTICE UNDER 148, THE CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT NO ASSESSMENT RECORD W AS BROUGHT BY THE LD. DR AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT NOTICES U/S 143(2) HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR ALSO RELIE D ON THE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SHRI JAI SHIV SHANKAR TRADERS PVT. LTD. (ITA NO. 519/2015 DA TED 5 ITA NOS. 1545 &4289/DEL/2012 14.10.2015). IN LIGHT OF THIS, THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS ITSELF IS BAD IN LAW AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAY BE SET ASID E AND QUASHED. 8. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT (A)S. 9. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD S. WE FIRST TAKE UP THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE RAISED IN THE ADDI TIONAL GROUND. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED UN DER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME FOR AS SUMING JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE INCOME UNDER SECTION 143 (3) R.W.S. 148 OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE NO NOTICE WAS ADMITTEDLY ISSU ED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. THIS IS CLEAR FROM THE REPLY UND ER RTI GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED ANY RECORDS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS IS SUED IN THIS CASE. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PR. C IT VS. SHRI JAI SHIV SHANKAR TRADERS PVT. LTD. (ITA NO. 519/2015 DA TED 14.10.2015) HELD AS UNDER: 12. THE NARRATION OF FACTS AS NOTED ABOVE BY THE CO URT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED T O THE ASSESSEE AFTER 16TH DECEMBER 2010, THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE INFOR MED THE AO THAT THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED SHOULD BE TREATED AS THE RE TURN FILED PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 13. IN DIT V. SOCIETY FOR WORLDWIDE INTERBANK FINAN CIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS (2010) 323 ITR 249 (DEL), THIS COURT INVALIDATED AN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER NOTING THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) O F THE ACT WAS NOT ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO THE FILING OF THE RETURN. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS HELD 6 ITA NOS. 1545 &4289/DEL/2012 MANDATORY TO SERVE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT ONLY AFTER THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACTUALLY SCRUTINISE D BY THE AO. 14. THE INTERPLAY OF SECTIONS 143 (2) AND 148 OF TH E ACT FORMED THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AT LEAST TWO DECISIONS OF THE ALLAHABAD H IGH COURT. IN CIT V. RAJEEV SHARMA (2011) 336 ITR 678 (ALL.) IT WAS HELD THAT A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT REVEALS THAT WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD SPECIFIED THEREIN, IT SHALL BE INCUMBENT TO SEND A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. IT WAS OBSERVED: THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SEC TION 143 IS MANDATORY AND THE LEGISLATURE IN THEIR WISDOM BY USING THE WORD ' REASON TO BELIEVE' HAD CAST A DUTY ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPLY MIND TO THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND AFTER BEING SATISFIED WITH REGARD TO ESCAPED LIABILITY, S HALL SERVE NOTICE SPECIFYING PARTICULARS OF SUCH CLAIM. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AF TER RECEIPT OF RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, IT SHALL BE M ANDATORY FOR THE AO TO SERVE A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION 2 OF SECTION 143 ASSIGNI NG REASON THEREIN. IN ABSENCE OF ANY NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION 2 OF SECTION 143 AFTER RECEIPT OF FRESH RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION, THE ENTIRE PROCEDURE ADOPTED FOR ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, SH ALL NOT BE VALID. 15. IN A SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT IN CIT V. SALARPUR COL D STORAGE (P.) LTD. (2014) 50 TAXMANN.COM 105 (ALL) IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 10. SECTION 292 BB OF THE ACT WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 WITH EFFECT FROM 1 APRIL 2008. SECTION 292 BB OF THE ACT PROVID ES A DEEMING FICTION. THE DEEMING FICTION IS TO THE EFFECT THAT ONCE THE ASSE SSEE HAS APPEARED IN ANY PROCEEDING OR COOPERATED IN ANY ENQUIRY RELATING TO AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE UN DER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE , HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF TH E ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS PRECLUDED FROM TAKING ANY OBJECTION IN ANY PROCEEDI NG OR ENQUIRY THAT THE NOTICE WAS (I) NOT SERVED UPON HIM; OR (II) NOT SER VED UPON HIM IN TIME; OR (III) SERVED UPON HIM IN AN IMPROPER MANNER. IN OTHER WOR DS, ONCE THE DEEMING FICTION COMES INTO OPERATION, THE ASSESSEE IS PRECL UDED FROM RAISING A CHALLENGE ABOUT THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE, SERVICE WITHIN TIME OR SERVICE IN AN IMPROPER MANNER. THE PROVISO TO SECTION 292 BB OF THE ACT, H OWEVER, CARVES OUT AN EXCEPTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE AS SESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT. SECTION 292 BB OF THE ACT CANNOT OBVIATE THE REQUIR EMENT OF COMPLYING WITH A JURISDICTIONAL CONDITION. FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT, IT IS NECESSARY TO ISSUE A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) OF THE ACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) OF THE ACT, THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION ITSELF WOULD BE INVALID. 7 ITA NOS. 1545 &4289/DEL/2012 16. IN THE SAME DECISION IN V. SALARPUR COLD STORAG E (P.) LTD.( SUPRA), THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT NOTICED THAT THE DECISION OF T HE SUPREME COURT IN ACIT V. HOTEL BLUE MOON (SUPRA) WHERE IN RELATION TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE REQUIREMENT TO ISSUE NOTICE UND ER SECTION 143(2) WAS MANDATORY. IT WAS NOT 'A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AN D THE SAME IS NOT CURABLE AND, THEREFORE, THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 143(2) CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH. 17. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD LIKEWISE IN SAPTHAGI RI FINANCE & INVESTMENTS V. ITO (2013) 90 DTR 289 (MAD). THE FACTS OF THAT C ASE WERE THAT A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE S EEKING TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2000-01. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT FILE A RETURN AND THEREFORE A NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO IT UNDER SECTION 1 42 (1) OF THE ACT. PURSUANT THERETO, THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND ST ATED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED SHOULD BE TREATED AS A RETURN FILED IN RESPON SE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT IF THE REAFTER, THE AO FOUND THAT THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH THE RETURN WHICH REQUIRED EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE THEN THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED UP WITH A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT: 'MERELY BECAUSE THE MATTER WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE A SSESSEE AND THE SIGNATURE IS AFFIXED IT DOES NOT MEAN THE REST OF THE PROCEDU RE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLIED WITH OR THAT ON PLAC ING THE OBJECTION THE ASSESSEE HAD WAIVED THE NOTICE FOR FURTHER PROCESSI NG OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE FACT THAT ON THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED ITS OBJECTION AND REITERATED IT S EARLIER RETURN FILED AS ONE FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF T HE ACT AND THE OFFICER HAD ALSO NOTED THAT THE SAME WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPLET ING OF ASSESSMENT, WOULD SHOW THAT THE AO HAS THE DUTY OF ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(3) TO LEAD ON TO THE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE CI RCUMSTANCES, WITH NO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(3) AND THERE BEING NO WAIVER, THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE GROUND TO ACCEPT THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THERE WAS A WA IVER OF RIGHT OF NOTICE TO BE ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. 18. AS ALREADY NOTICED, THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN CIT V. VISION INC. PROCEEDED ON A DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS. IN THAT CASE, THERE WA S A CLEAR FINDING OF THE COURT THAT SERVICE OF THE NOTICE HAD BEEN EFFECTED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) OF THE ACT. AS ALREADY FURTHER NOTICED, THE LEG AL POSITION REGARDING SECTION 292BB HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE EXPLICIT IN THE AFOREME NTIONED DECISIONS OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. THAT PROVISION WOULD APPLY IN SOFAR AS FAILURE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE WAS CONCERNED AND NOT WITH REGARD TO FAIL URE TO ISSUE NOTICE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE FAILURE OF THE AO, IN RE-ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, TO ISSUE NOTICE 8 ITA NOS. 1545 &4289/DEL/2012 UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, PRIOR TO FINALISIN G THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER, CANNOT BE CONDONED BY REFERRING TO SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT. 19. THE RESULTANT POSITION IS THAT AS FAR AS THE PR ESENT CASE IS CONCERNED THE FAILURE BY THE AO TO ISSUE A NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT SUBSEQUENT TO 16TH DECEMBER 2010 WHEN THE ASSES SEE MADE A STATEMENT BEFORE THE AO TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ORIGINAL RETUR N FILED SHOULD BE TREATED AS A RETURN PURSUANT TO A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF TH E ACT, IS FATAL TO THE ORDER OF RE-ASSESSMENT. 20. CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS NO LEGAL INFIRMITY IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ITAT. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. THE APPEAL I S DISMISSED. THUS IN LIGHT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDG MENT, THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW. 10. ITA NO. 4289/DEL/2012 IS IN RESPECT OF PENALTY AND THE SAME IS CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE QUANTUM APPEAL WHICH IS DEC IDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE PENALTY APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE DOES NOT SURVIVE. 11. IN RESULT, ITA NO. 1545/DEL/2012 IS ALLOWED AND ITA NO. 4289/DEL/2012 IS DISPOSED OF. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17TH OF MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ( SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER DATED: 17/05/2016 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 9 ITA NOS. 1545 &4289/DEL/2012 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT R EGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 04/03/2016 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 07/03/2016 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2016 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 17.05.2016 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 7 .0 5 .2016 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.