Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), V. M/s Melatheru Commodities Trading Pvt. Ltd., Panaji

ITA 443/PAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93578 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANAND SHANKAR MARATHE
• Keywords: Business income; Capital receipt

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 443 /PNJ/201 4 (ASST. YEAR : 20 11 - 1 2 ) ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI. VS. M/S. MELATHERU COMMODITIES TRADING PVT. LTD., F - 2, 1 ST FLOOR, CHA NSON BUILDING, ST. MARYS COLONY, MIRAMAR, PANAJI. PAN NO. AAECM 6369 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 08 /PNJ/201 5 (ASST. YEAR : 20 11 - 1 2 ) M/S. MELATHERU COMMODITIES TRADING PVT. LTD., F - 2, 1 ST FLOOR, CHANSON BUILDING, ST. MARYS COLONY, MIRAMAR, PANAJI. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI. PAN NO. AAECM 6369 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI THAIKA AHMED NUBAIL DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE - CO. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ANAND SHANKAR MARATHE - D R DATE OF HEARING : 1 3 / 0 7 /2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 / 0 7 /201 5 . O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , PANAJI , DATED 2 2/ 1 0/201 4 . 2 ITA NO. 4 43 /PNJ/2014 & C.O. 08/PNJ/2015 2. THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,00,000/ - MADE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND TREATING IT AS REVENUE RECEIPT AND INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION BASED ON DEED OF COMPROMISE OF PENDING LITIGATIONS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A PROOF. 3 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED TH A T THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,50,00,000/ - IN THE C APITAL R ESERVE S A CCOUNT IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IN THE NOTES TO ACCOUNT , THE AUDITORS HAVE STATED THAT THERE WERE MAJOR LITIGATIONS, BOTH CIV I L AND CRIMINAL BETWEEN THE GROUP AND MINE OWNERS WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE GROUP ENTERED INTO CONTRACT S FOR MINING AND SALE OF IRON ORE. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE - GROUP ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE MINE OWNERS FOR SETTLEMENT OF ALL PENDING CASES. AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE - GROUP HAS AGREED TO WITHDRAW ALL PENDING CASES AND ALSO AGREED TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT WITH THEM. FOR WITHDRAWAL OF PENDING CASES AND TAKING OVER OF A FEW SPECIFIC ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP COMPANY , THE MINE OWNERS HA VE AGREED TO PAY RS. 10 CRORES TO THE ASSESSEE GROUP COMPANY - MELATHERU MINING COMPANY PVT. LTD. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE GROUP COMPANY MELATHERU MINING COMPANY PVT. LTD. HAS ALSO TERMINATED THE CONTRACT WITH THE ASSESSEE. AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT RS. 1.5 CRORE WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY MELATHERU MINING COMPANY PVT. LTD. AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CREDITED TO THE CAPITAL RESERVES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE NOTE DOES NOT SPEAK OF ANY REASON WHY THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.5 CRORE HAS NOT BEEN CREDITED TO PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT , AND WHY THE SAID SUM CREDITED IS NOT A REVENUE RECEIPT NOR CONSTITUTES A CAPITAL GAIN. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 11/11/2013 REQUIRING IT TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT WAS NOT CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT NOR AS ANY CAPITAL GAIN 3 ITA NO. 4 43 /PNJ/2014 & C.O. 08/PNJ/2015 SINCE THE DETAILS OF SUCH RECEIPTS HAS NOT BEEN FILED DURING THE SCRUTINY HEARING. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS WHY THE RECEIPT OF RS. 1.5 CRORES SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS REVENUE RECEIPT AND ACCORDINGLY TAX ED. THE A SSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TIME UPTO 20/11/2013 TO FILE ITS REPLY. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ANY REPLY. THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ALLOWED OPPORTUNITY TILL 28/11/2013 , BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FRO M THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON 06/12/2013, SMT. SWATEE RANE, FCA , AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND STATED THAT SHE WAS IN RECEIPT OF COPY OF AGREEMENT OF RECEIPT OF RS. 10 CRORES BY THE GROUP COMPANIES FOR TERMINATION/ RELINQUISHMENT OF CERTAIN RIGHTS AND S HE PRODUCED XEROX COPY OF THE SAME BEARING THE TITLE DEED OF COMPROMISE OF PENDING LITIGATIONS DATED 05/01/2011 EXECUTED AT MUMBAI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED FROM THE SAID AGREEMENT THAT NOWHERE ASSESSEES NAME HAD BEEN MENTIONED NOR THE NATURE OF RS. 10 CRORES BY THE GRO UP COMPANIES COULD BE MADE OUT. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. SWATEE RANE STATED THAT SINCE THE MATTER WAS OLD IN ORDER TO GIVE REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 25/11/2013, SHE REQUIRES SOME MORE TIME. ACCORDINGLY, SHE WAS ALLOWED TIME UPTO 12/12/2013. HOWEVER , NO REPLY WAS FILED BY HER. HOWEVER, ON 16/12/2013, A SUBMISSION DATED 13/12/2013 SIGNED BY THAIKA AHMED NUBAIL , DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS RECEIVED THROUGH TAPAL. IN THIS SUBMISSION, THE DIRECTO R OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT A MINING OPERATIONS ARRANGEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN MMC GROUP AND DMP GROUP. AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED BY MMC FOR RAISING OF IRON ORE AND MC/MCT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE 100% QUANTITY OF IRON ORE RAISED . WHILE MMC DID TH E ORE RAISING UNDER THE ORE RAISING CONTRACT , MCT HAD THE EXCLUSIVE SALE RIGHTS UNDER THE PURCHASE & SALE AGREEMENT FOR THE ENTIRE QUANTITY RAISED. THUS, THE INTEREST OF BOTH THE COMPANIES WERE INVOLVED IN THE ARRANGEMENT. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS DID NOT GO AS ENVISAGED BECAUSE OF DIFFERENCES WITH THE MINE OWNERS LEADING TO SEVERAL LITIGATIONS WITH THEM. BOTH MMC & MCT WERE PARTIES 4 ITA NO. 4 43 /PNJ/2014 & C.O. 08/PNJ/2015 TO ALL THE LITIGATIONS AND ALSO THE COMPROMISE ARRANGEMEN T. AS PART OF THE COMPROMISE ARRANGEMENT, THE DMP GROUP AGREED TO PAY RS. 10 CRORES WHICH INCLUDES REFUND OF RS. 2 CRORES OF SECURITY DEPOSIT FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ALL PENDING CASES AND SURRENDER BACK OF THE MINING RIGHTS ETC. TO THEM . THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE DMP GROUP WAS A COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CASES AND IS FOR BOTH THE COMPANIES AS A WHOLE. BASED ON THE UNDERSTANDING REACHED BETWEEN MMC & MCT CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF OPERATIONS HANDLED BETWEEN THEM, IT WAS AGREED THAT A LU MPSUM OF RS. 1.5 CRORE S WILL BE FOR MCT ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED AFTER MEETING ALL RELATED EXPENSES WILL BE FOR MMC . THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.5 CRORES WAS RECEIVED BY MCT IS FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE PENDING LITIGATION AND AS PART OF OVERAL L SETTLEMENT WITH THE MINE OWNERS AND WAS, THEREFORE , A CAPITAL RECEIPT. HENCE, IT WAS ADDED TO THE CAPITAL RESERVES IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALL ALONG FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF SUCH RECEIPT AND DETAILS OF ANY CAPITAL DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST YEARS. ALL ALONG ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN IT S RETURN AND THE ACCOUNTS, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AVAILED ANY OF THE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO IT FOR EXP LAIN ITS CASE VIS - A - VIS THE ACCOUNTS AND IN S PITE OF MANY OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR CREDIT OF RS. 1.5 CRORES TO THE CAPITAL RESERVES WITHOUT BEING CREDITED TO ITS TRADING AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, EITHER AS A TRADING RECEIPT OR AS CAPITAL GAIN , THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS . THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO STATE IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAID SUM OF RS. 1.5 CRORES REPRESENTS ASSESSEES INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES HITHER TO UNDISCLOSED. 4 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAX THE RECEIPT OF RS. 1.5 CRORES UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT 5 ITA NO. 4 43 /PNJ/2014 & C.O. 08/PNJ/2015 UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ALLOW THE SET OF F OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND FACTS OF THIS CASE. THE A.O., DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CREDITED ITS CAPITAL RESERVES IN THE BALANCE - SHEET WITH AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1.50 CRORES, DIRECTLY WITHOUT CREDITING ANYTHING IN ITS P&L ACCOUNT. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE SAME. I RESPONSE THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED AS TO HOW THEY ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT .WITH MINE OWNERS AND SPENT MONEY, MANPOWER AND RESOURCES IN ORGANIZING THE MINES AND TOOK ALL THE LEGAL PERMISSIONS TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE THESE MINES. AS SOON AS THE MINES BECAME OPERA TIONAL THE APPELLANTS WERE FORCIBLY EVIDED FROM THE MINES AND AS A RESULT .A SERIES OF LITIGATION STARTED. IN THE MEANWHILE THE APPELLANT AND ITS OTHER GROUP COMPANIES CONTINUED MAKING LOSSES. FINALLY, A SETTLEMENT WAS REACHED, WHEREIN THE APPELLANT AND IT S GROUP COMPANIES HAD TO LEAVE ALL ITS RIGHTS ON THE MINES FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.10 CRORES, OUT OF WHICH RS.1.5 CRORES WAS THE SHARE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. SINCE THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR DISCONTINUANCE OF BUSINESS, THE APPELLANT COMPANY CLAIMED IT TO BE A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND CREDITED THE SAME IN THE CAPITAL RESERVE IN THE BALANCE - SHEET. THE A.O. DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONCLUDED THAT THE TREATMENT OF RECEIPT OF RS. 1.5 CRORES HAS NOT SA TISFACTORILY BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ROUTED THROUGH TRADING AND P & L ACCOUNT. THE A.O. CONCLUDED TO TREAT THE RECEIPT OF RS. 1.5 CRORES AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT STATED THAT IT HAD EXPLAINED COMPLETE FACTS AND BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE RECEIPT IS NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. ALL THE LITIGATIONS WERE RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND THE AMOUNT OF RECEIPT REPRESENTS THE COMPENSATION FOR THE WORK DONE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN MAKING THE MINES OPERATIONAL AND RELINQUISH ITS RIGHTS ON THE MINES. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE RECEIPT OF MONEY CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE CAPITAL RECEIPT, BUT AT THE SAME T IME, IT ALSO CANNOT BE SAID TO BE NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE A PPELLANT, AND THEREFORE, IT CAN NOT BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES; AS SOURCE IS KNOWN AND THAT IS, THE BUSINESS OF MINING. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, AS DISCUSSED E ARLIER, IN MY OPINION, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.5 CRORES, IS A REVENUE RECEIPT AND 6 ITA NO. 4 43 /PNJ/2014 & C.O. 08/PNJ/2015 SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND SET - OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES BE ALLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE A. O . IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 5 . BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6 . THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.5 CRORES MADE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAX THE SAME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS PROFITS AND GAINS AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO ASSESS THE RECEIPT OF RS. 1.5 CRORES UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF CAPITAL GAINS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND , THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE INCOME AS REVENUE RECEIPT CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME SHOULD BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.5 CRORES WAS RECEIVED FOR SURRENDER BACK OF THE MINING RIGHTS AND WITHDR A WAL OF PENDING LITIGATIONS AND THE SAME WAS CAPITAL RECEIPT , NOT SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX. 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MINING AND TRADING IN IRON ORE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TERMINATED THE MINING LEASE WITH THE MINE OWNERS AND FOR THAT RECEIVED RS. 1.5 CRORES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT ALL THE LITIGATIONS WERE RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND THE AMOUNT OF RECEIPT REPRESENT S COMPENSATION FOR 7 ITA NO. 4 43 /PNJ/2014 & C.O. 08/PNJ/2015 THE WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN MAKING THE MINES OPERATIONAL AND RE LINQUISH ITS RIGHTS ON THE MINES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT AFTER ENTER ING INTO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE MINE OWNERS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SPENT MAN POWER AND RESOURCES IN OPENING THE MINES AND TOOK ALL THE LEGAL PERMISSION S TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE THESE MINES AS SOON AS THE MINES BECAME OPERATION AL . THE ASSESSEE WAS FORCIBLY EVICTED FROM THE MINES AS A RESULT OF WHICH SERIOUS LITIGATIONS WERE STARTED . IN THE MEANWHILE, THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO MAKE LOSS. THUS, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.5 CRORES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND RECEIVED ON TERMINATION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE , WAS A BUSINESS I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. 10. NEITHER OF THE PARTIES BEFORE US DURING THE HEARING HAS CONTROVERTED THE ABOVE FINDING S OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE RECEIPT OF RS. 1.5 CRORES ON WITHDRAWAL OF THE LITIGATIONS WITH THE MINE OWNERS , WAS A CAPITAL RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE, NOT LIABLE TO TAX. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD AFTER INVESTIGATION TO SHOW THAT WHY THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.5 CRORES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE SUM OF RS. 1.5 CRORES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE , AS THE SAME WAS RECEIVED ON TERMINATION OF THE MINING LEASE, WHICH WAS THE BUSINESS ASSET OF THE ASSESSEE AND USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING INCOME. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHICH IS CONFIRMED AND THE 8 ITA NO. 4 43 /PNJ/2014 & C.O. 08/PNJ/2015 GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE, BOTH ARE DISMISSED. 11 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON MONDAY , THE 1 3 TH DAY OF JULY , 201 5 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (GEORGE MATHAN) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 1 3 TH JU LY , 201 5 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI 9 ITA NO. 4 43 /PNJ/2014 & C.O. 08/PNJ/2015 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD IS ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 1 6 .0 7 .2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 1 7 .07 .2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 17 /07 /2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 17 /0 7 /2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 17 /07 /2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13 /0 7 /2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 17 /07 /2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER