Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 8, Pune V. M/s. Finolex Cables Ltd, Pune

ITA 479/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6233 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A; 80IB; 80HH; 43

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण “सी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 479/PUN/2021 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Finolex Cables Ltd. 26-27, Mumbai-Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune-411 018 PAN : AAACF2637D ......प्रत्यथी / Respondent Revenue by : Shri Sunil Kumar Assessee by : Shri Jayant Pendse सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 16.12.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2021 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This appeal preferred by the Revenue emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal), Pune -13 dated 29.04.2021 for the assessment year 2016-17 as per the following grounds of appeal on record: “1. The CIT(A) erred on both on facts and in law in passing the order. 2. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Pune wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal held that no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer as per requirement of Rule 8D. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Pune wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal held that the mandatory requirement 2 ITA No. 479/PUN/2021 A.Y.2016-17 of recording satisfaction is not fulfilled in terms of law explained by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. reported as 86 taxmann.com 200. 4. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of the assessee u/s.80IC on income earned from sale of scarp when it was not derived from the activities of the eligible business. 5. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of the assessee u/s.80IB/80IC on sale of scrap, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Fenner India Ltd. (241 ITR 893) which has been rendered without taking into consideration various decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court on this issue like CIT Vs. Sterling food (1999) 237 ITR 579 when it was not derived from the activities of the eligible business. 6. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) wherein the words derived from as used in Sec.80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. For these and such other reasons as may be urged at the time of hearing the order of the CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 8. The Appellant craves, leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon’ble Tribunal.” 2. Ground Nos.1, 7 & 8 are general in nature and hence, no adjudication is required. 3. Ground Nos. 2 & 3 relates to the grievance of the Revenue regarding deletion of disallowance made u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the ITAT, Pune and held that when no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer as per requirement of Rule 8D, no such disallowance is warranted. The Tribunal in that decision had relied on the law explained by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. reported as 86 taxmann.com 200. 4. The brief facts on this issue are that the during the assessment proceedings, on verification of the details and documents for the year under 3 ITA No. 479/PUN/2021 A.Y.2016-17 consideration, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee company had received dividend income of Rs.8,52,96,816/-. The entire dividend income has been claimed by the assessee company as exempt under section 10(34) of the Act. In this regard, the assessee was asked to submit working under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. Further, the assessee has furnished the details called for. On verification of the detail of disallowances, it was seen that the assessee had made suo moto disallowance of Rs.5,34,763/- as against the exempt income of Rs.1,19,31,040/- while computing taxable income. Thus, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. The submission of the assessee was duly considered but not found to be acceptable to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that in principle for the reasons that any expenditure incurred for earning the income which cannot become part of the total income cannot be allowed while computing the income of the assessee company. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.1,13,96,277/- u/s.14A r.w.r.8D and added the same to its total income. 5. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has made following submissions: “Before application of Rule 8D, the conditions under Rule 8D(1) needs to be satisfied. However, the Ld. AO has not at all recorded his satisfaction under Rule 8D(1). Hence, Rule 8D is not applicable. In this connection, we also invite your attention to the orders of the Hon’ble ITAT for the AY. 2003-04, AY 2004-05, AY 2005-06, AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08, AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10, AY 2010-11, AY 2011-12 wherein the Hon’ble ITAT deleted the disallowance. In these years also the appellant had suo-motu disallowed the amounts under section 14A. Further we invite your attention to the following case laws:  CIT Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 500 ( Bom.) (HC)  Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 328 ITR 81  H.T Media Ltd. Vs. PCIT (Del.) (HC)  Pr. CIT Vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. (Bom.) (HC) It is therefore prayed that the addition made may kindly be deleted and this ground of appeal be allowed.” 4 ITA No. 479/PUN/2021 A.Y.2016-17 6. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee and the assessment order has held and observed as follows: “FINDINGS : 2.3. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submission filed by the appellant. It is seen that this issue is covered in favour of the appellant in its own case by honourable ITAT Pune’s order in ITA Nos.327 to 330/PUN/2016 dated 28.11.2017 for AY 2008-09 to AY 2011-12. Respectfully following the same, appeal is allowed on this ground.” 7. The order of the Tribunal relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessee‟s own case for assessment years 2008-08 to 2011-12 was also relied upon by the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in ITA No.2256/PUN/2017 & ITA Nos.1998 & 1999/PUN/2017 for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2014-15 dated 02.12.2020 wherein the Tribunal on this issue has held and observed as follows: “10. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the material available on record. It is observed that a similar issue as involved in the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 relating to the disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules had come up for consideration before the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for earlier years i.e. A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 and vide its common order dated 28.11.2017 passed in ITA Nos.327 to 330/PUN/2016, the Tribunal decided the said issue in favour of assessee deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules vide paragraph Nos.5 to 14 of its order, which read as under:- “5. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. The solitary issue raised in all the appeals by the assessee is against confirming of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. It is an admitted fact that the assessee had made strategic investment in group concern. By virtue of such investment the assessee has earned dividend income. The assessee has made suo-moto disallowance u/s. 14A in all the assessment years under appeal, however, the Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings enhanced the disallowance by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D. the details of exempt income received, suo-moto disallowance made by assessee and disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D made by Assessing Officer are as under : 5 ITA No. 479/PUN/2021 A.Y.2016-17 Assessment year Total Dividend income received. Claimed as exempt (in Rs.) Suo-motu disallowance by assessee (in Rs.) Disallowance u/s.14A applying Rule 8D by AO ( In Rs.) 2008-09 13,72,45,640/- 2,55,400/- 1,17,74,029/- 2009-10 12,52,22,953/- 3,02,550/- 1,61,02,610/- 2010-11 4,24,98,032/- 4,43,316/- 1,01,86,592/- 2011-12 13,56,23,646/- 5,28,048/- 1,18,34,013/- 6. The Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s. 14A by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii). In first appeal the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted disallowance made under the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii) and confirmed disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The assessee in appeal before Tribunal has assailed the Assessing Officer’s action of invoking the provisions of Rule 8D without recording satisfaction. 7. Before proceedings to decide this issue it would be relevant to first refer the relevant provisions of section 14A of the Act. “Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. 14A. (1) For the purposes of computing the total income under this Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. (2) The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed, if the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. (3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act:” A bare perusal of sub-section (2) to section 14A makes it clear that recording of satisfaction by Assessing Officer to the effect that the claim made by assessee in respect of expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act is correct or otherwise is one of the pre-conditions. Thus, the road to Rule 8D passes through sub-section (2) to section 14A of the Act. The satisfaction of Assessing Officer as to incorrect claim made by assessee is sine-qua-non for invoking the provisions of Rule 8D. Such satisfaction can be reached and recorded only when the claim of assessee is verified. 8. In the present case we observe that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer after considering the submissions of assessee proceeded on to working of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D without commenting or recording satisfaction qua suo-moto disallowance made by assessee. The right course of action for the Assessing Officer is to first examine correctness of assessee’s claim of disallowance made u/s. 14A. If the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim made by assessee, the Assessing Officer after recording 6 ITA No. 479/PUN/2021 A.Y.2016-17 objective satisfaction should have invoked the provisions of Rule 8D. In the instant case the Assessing Officer has not deliberated in his order as to what was the disallowance made by assessee, and as to why the disallowance made by assessee is incorrect. The Assessing Officer directly proceeded on to compute disallowance under Rule 8D without even taking note of suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. 9. In First Appellate Proceedings the assessee raised the objections before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) qua non-compliance of provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14A. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the contentions of assessee by observing as under : “5.7. ..............The fact that the appellant had considered certain amount as disallowable does not come out from the appellant’s submissions reproduced in the asst order. It appears from the asst order that before the AO the appellant assessee had claimed that no expenditure was incurred to earn the dividend income. The AO has discussed the issue of applicability of Rule 8D in great detail in his order. Thus the satisfaction of the AO regarding applying Rule 8D is there.” To support his reasoning, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) placed reliance on the decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in the 7 ITA Nos. 327 to 330/PUN/2016, A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 case of Lap Finance & Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1522 to 1525/PN/2013 decided on 06-11-2015. 10. We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in coming to conclusion that the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction regarding applying Rule 8D. We further observe that reliance placed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lap Finance & Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is misplaced, as the facts of aforesaid case are distinguishable. In the said case, the assessee had not made any self disallowance of expenditure against exempt income earned. The assessee was given opportunity to explain the reasons. 11. A perusal of assessment order reveals that the Assessing Officer at the outset asked the assessee to furnish explanation as to why proportionate amount of interest expenditure should not be disallowed under Rule 8D r.w. section 14A of the Act, instead of first examining the suo-moto disallowance made by assessee and seeking explanation from the assessee the manner of computation of such disallowance. The Assessing Officer proceeded on the premise as if disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D is automatic irrespective of the genuineness of claim made by assessee. 12. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra) held that the Assessing Officer is required to record objective satisfaction for making disallowance of expenditure u/s. 14A. The relevant extract of the findings of Hon’ble High Court reads as under : “5. It is undisputed position before us that for the subject assessment year. r. 8D of the Rules would be applicable in view of the decision of this 8 ITA Nos. 327 to 330/PUN/2016, A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 Court in Godrej 7 ITA No. 479/PUN/2021 A.Y.2016-17 &. Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2010) 234 CTR (Born) 1: (2010) 43 DTR (Bom) 177: (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom). However, we further note that the non-satisfaction of the AO with regard to the disallowance of expenditure done by the respondent-assessee has to be an objective satisfaction which entails recording of reasons as held by this Court in Godrej and Boyce (supra) in para 55 while recording summation of its conclusion as under: " (ix) The satisfaction envisaged by sub-s. (2) of s. 14A is an objective satisfaction that has to be arrived at by the AO having regard to the accounts of the assessee. The safeguard introduced by sub-so (2) of s. 14A for a fair and reasonable exercise of power by the AO, conditioned as it is by the requirement of an objective satisfaction, must, therefore, be scrupulously observed. An objective satisfaction contemplates a notice to the assessee, an opportunity to the assessee to place on record all the relevant facts including his accounts and recording of reasons by the AO in the event that he comes to the conclusion that he is not satisfied with the claim of the assessee:" 6. Thus no fault can be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal holding that the AO should show fallacies in the computation of disallowance done by the respondent- assessee. Thus, there is no reason to discard the disallowance done by the respondent-assessee.” 13. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in a recent decision in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. reported as 86 taxmann.com 200 has held that where Assessing Officer has not commented upon the correctness or otherwise of the assessee’s working of expenditure, formula prescribed in Rule 8D(2)(iii) could not have been applied to work out disallowance u/s. 14A. 14. Thus, in view of the facts of the case and the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we are of considered view that the Assessing Officer has made disallowance u/s. 14 r.w. Rule 8D in violation of the provisions of sub-section (2) to section 14A. Hence, the disallowance made by Assessing Officer is not sustainable. Accordingly, ground Nos. 2 9 ITA Nos. 327 to 330/PUN/2016, A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 and 3 raised in the appeal by the assessee in all the assessment years under appeal are allowed. 15. The ld. AR of the assessee has stated at the Bar that he is not pressing ground No. 1 raised in the appeals for the impugned assessment years. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed.” 11. As the issue involved in the year under consideration as well as all the material facts relating thereto are similar to A.Ys.2008- 09 to 2011-12, we respectfully follow the common order of the Tribunal dated 28.11.2017 (supra) deciding a similar issue in favour of the assessee for the said years by relying inter-alia, on the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra) and delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and 8 ITA No. 479/PUN/2021 A.Y.2016-17 confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules. The appeal of assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 is accordingly allowed. 12. This leaves us with the appeal of assessee for A.Y. 2014-15 being ITA No.1999/PUN/2017 which involves a solitary issue relating to the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules which is similar to the one involved in assessee‟s appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, which has already been decided by us. Since all the material facts relating to the said issue as involved in A.Y. 2014-15 are similar to A.Y. 2012-13, we follow the conclusion drawn by us in A.Y.2012-13 and delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s.14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules. The appeal of assessee for AY 2014-15 is accordingly allowed.” 8. The Ld. DR fairly conceded that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 9. Therefore, the Tribunal placing reliance on its own decision in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2008-09 to 2011-12 (supra.) had provided relief to the assessee. Respectfully following the same parity of reasoning as per same set of facts and circumstances, Ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised in appeal by the Revenue are dismissed. 10. Ground Nos. 4, 5 & 6 relates to the grievance of the Revenue that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of the assessee u/s.80IB/80IC on sale of scrap, relying on the decision of the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Fenner India Ltd. (241 ITR 893). 11. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case in ITA Nos.593 to 596/PUN/2016 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12 dated 21.12.2017 on this issue has held and observed as follows: “6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Briefly in the facts of the case the assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act for Goa Unit in respect of sale of scrap. We find that similar issue of claim of deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act on sale of scrap generated out 9 ITA No. 479/PUN/2021 A.Y.2016-17 of manufacturing process was treated as business income and the deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act was allowed. The Tribunal in ITA Nos.564 & 565/PN/2014 relating to assessment years 2005-06 & 2007-08 in the appeal filed by the Revenue, with lead order in ITA No.360/PN/2014 relating to assessment year 2007-08 in the appeal filed by the assessee, vide order dated 31.08.2015 had held as under : “6. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of both the sides and have examined the orders of the authorities below. We have also perused the orders of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA No. 105/PN/2007 for assessment year 2002-03 decided on15-07-2011 and ITA No. 1975/PN/2013 for assessment year 2004-05 decided on 29-09-2014. We find that the Tribunal has accepted the claim of assessee by placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Fenner India Ltd. reported as 241 ITR 803. The relevant extract of the order of Tribunal in ITA No. 105/PN/2007 is as under: “27. Ground no. 6 relates to CIT(A)'s direction to the A.O to allow the deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act in respect of scrap generated out of manufacturing process treating the same as business income. The A.O observed that the scrap is not a bye product of the assessee and hence the sale of the same cannot be treated as the business income of the unit and hence not eligi9ble for deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act. As regards the alternative ground of the assessee of taking net income earned out of the sale of scrap, the A.O. observed that the same is not acceptable as the cost relating to the sale of scrap was already debited to the P & L a/c of the unit. The A.O also did not grant deduction u/s 80-IB in respect of miscellaneous income amounting to Rs.56,32,480/- relying on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals (233 ITR 497) and Sterling Foods Ltd. (236 AITR 529). On appeal, the CIT(A) has confirmed the view taken by the A.O on this issue. 28. At the very outset, the Learned Counsel for the assessee has mentioned that the said issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of .Madras High Court judgment in the case of M/s Fenner India Ltd (241 ITR 803) for the proposition that the profit on sale of scrap material since had a direct link or nexus with the industrial undertaking and therefore, it is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB, Considering the similarity in language used in sections 80HH and 80IB of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee should succeed in this regard also. Accordingly, ground 3 of the revenue's appeal is dismissed.” In assessment year 2004-05, the Co-ordinate Bench by following the decision rendered in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2002-03 granted relief to the assessee. 10 ITA No. 479/PUN/2021 A.Y.2016-17 7. The Revenue has not been able to controvert the findings of the Tribunal on this issue. Since, there is no change in facts and circumstances in the impugned assessment years, we do not find any reason to take a different view. Accordingly, we uphold the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue and dismiss both the appeals of the Revenue.” 7. The issue arising in the present bunch of appeals filed by the Revenue is identical to the issue in the earlier years and there is no change in the factual aspect. Accordingly, we uphold the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. 8. The facts and issues in ITA Nos.594 to 596/PUN/2016 are identical to the facts and issues in ITA No.593/PUN/2016 and our decision in ITA No.593/PUN/2016 shall apply mutatis mutandis to ITA Nos.594 to 596/PUN/2016. 9. In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed.” 12. The Ld. DR fairly conceded that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 13. Respectfully, following the decision of the Tribunal (supra.), on the same parity of reasoning and on same set of facts and circumstances, the relief provided to the assessee by the First Appellate Authority is sustained. Thus, Ground Nos. 4, 5 & 6 raised in appeal by the Revenue are dismissed. 14. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 16 th day of December, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- INTURI RAMA RAO PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददनांक / Dated : 16 th December, 2021 SB 11 ITA No. 479/PUN/2021 A.Y.2016-17 आदेश की प्रधतधलधप अग्रेधषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT (Appeals)-13, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-3, Pune. 5. धवभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, “सी” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “C” Bench, Pune. 6. गार्ा फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // धनजी सधचव / Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. 12 ITA No. 479/PUN/2021 A.Y.2016-17 Date 1 Draft dictated on 16.12.2021 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 16.12.2021 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member AM/JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order