Sponge Iron India Ltd., (merged with NMDC Ltd), Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

ITA 484/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6332 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KPC RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: LAXMINIWAS SHAR MA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Proportionate interest; Bad and doubtful debts; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 32; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 484 & 485/HYD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 & 2002-03 M/S SPONGE IRON INDIA LTD. (MERGED WITH NMDC LTD.), HYDERABAD. PAN AAADCS 4045 D VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI LAXMINIWAS SHARMA REVENUE BY : SHRI K.P.C. RAO DATE OF HEARING 04-07-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10-08-2016 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX(A) - 4, HYDERABAD, BOTH, DATED 29/01/2016 FOR AYS 2000-01 A ND 2002-03. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH ARE COMMON IN BOTH THE APPEALS EXCEPT THE QUANTUM O F ADDITIONS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER FROM ITA NO. 484/HYD/2016: 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW WHILE PASSING ORDER. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE DEPR ECIATION ON SAF PLANT OF RS. 8,93,31,644/- 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING PROPORTI ONATE INTEREST OF RS. 18,53,245/- CALCULATED AT 14.5% ON THE DEPOS IT MADE WITH SICK PSU OF RS. 127.81IAKHS. 2 ITA NOS. 484 & 485/H/16 SPONGE IRON INDIA LTD. (MERGED WITH NMDC LTD.) 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE P ROVISION FOR NON MOVING STORES OF RS. 11,86,000/- DO NOT CONSTIT UTE THE ASCERTAINED LIABILITIES AND FURTHER ERRED IN APPLYI NG ITEM (C) OF SUB SECTION (2) OF SEC 115JB OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. FOR THESE & OTHER GROUND WHICH MAY BE RAISED DUR ING OR BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE RELIEF B E GRANTED. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS AS TAKEN FROM AY 2000-01 ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS AN UNDERTAKING OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA AND THE GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH. IT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF M ANUFACTURE AND SALE OF SPONGE IRON. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE AY 2000-01 ADMITTING A TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 22,14,83,554/ -. THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS AN D ASSESSED THE LOSS AT RS. 12,58,91,876/-. A) DEPRECIATION ON SAF RS. 8,93,31,644/- B) DEPRECIATION ON RAILWAY SIDINGS RS. 5 ,189/- C) INCOME RELATED TO PREVIOUS YEAR RS. 30,04,0 00/- D) PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE ON INTEREST ON ICDS RS. 18,53,245/- E) DONATIONS RS. 4,600/- F) PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS RS. 13, 93,000/- 4. AS SEEN FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED AGAINST A), D) AND F) OF THE SAID ADDITIONS. 5. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 PERTAINING TO DISALLOWANC E OF DEPRECIATION ON SAF OF RS. 8,93,31,644/-, THE AO O BSERVED THAT THE ASSETS OF THE SAF PLANT HAVE NOT BEEN PUT TO USE DU RING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FOR THE PURPOS E OF ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS. THE 'USE' MUST BE DURING THE RELEVANT ACC OUNTING YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION U/S 32 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RELIED ON JUDGMENT OF HON'BL E HIGH COURT IN VARIOUS CASES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSETS OF SAF ARE READY TO USE I S CAREFULLY 3 ITA NOS. 484 & 485/H/16 SPONGE IRON INDIA LTD. (MERGED WITH NMDC LTD.) CONSIDERED BY THE AO. THE AO OBSERVED THAT IT IS PE RTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSETS OF SAF WERE NOT ACTUALLY PUT TO USE FROM 1996-97. EVEN THOUGH HUGE TIME LAPSED FROM THE DATE OF PUTTI NG THE ASSETS TO TRIAL RUNS, ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACTUALLY PUT THE ASSET S TO USE. DURING THE A. Y. 2000-2001 ALSO THE ASSETS OF SAF WERE NOT PUT TO ACTUAL, EFFECTIVE USE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSETS OF SAF PLANT ARE NOT PUT TO USE DURING THE R ELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED TO THE TUNE OF RS. 8 ,93,31,644/- WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ADDED TO TH E TOTAL INCOME. 6. ON AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REI TERATED ITS SUBMISSIONS AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 2001-02 AND 2003-04 CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION. 7. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT SAF PLANT IS NOT A SEPAR ATE UNIT BY ITSELF BUT AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ENTIRE MACHINERY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE UNIT AS SUCH WAS FUNCTIONING. IT IS PLEADED THAT PLANT AND MACHINERY FORM PART OF SAME BLOCK OF ASSETS AND NEI THER SECTION 32 NOR SECTION 43(6) MENTIONS THAT EACH ITEM OF PLANT AND MACHINERY HAS TO BE PUT TO USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS BE FORE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWED. HE ADMITTED THAT THE ITAT HAS NOT ALLOWED THE SAID DEPRECIATION FOR EARLIER YEARS. 9. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND P ERUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD AS WELL AS ORDERS OF REVEN UE AUTHORITIES. 4 ITA NOS. 484 & 485/H/16 SPONGE IRON INDIA LTD. (MERGED WITH NMDC LTD.) SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY T HE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 2001-02 AND 2003-04. TH EREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE AC TION OF THE AO FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF T HIS TRIBUNAL. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 11. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 3 PERTAINING TO DISALLOW ANCE OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OF RS. 18,53,245/-, AO OBSER VED THAT, NO PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD PAY INTEREST ON THE LOANS BORROWED BY HIM, WHILE HIS FUNDS ARE LYING ELSEWHERE AS INTERES T FREE DEPOSITS. THE FIRST THING HE DOES IS TO TAKE BACK THE INTEREST FR EE DEPOSITS AND USE THEM FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSES, RATHER THAN BORROWI NG OF INTEREST BEARING LOAN. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED INTER EST-FREE INTER- CORPORATE DEPOSITS, IT HAD TO PAY INTEREST ON THE L OANS BORROWED TO THE EXTENT OF THE INTER-CORPORATE DEPOSITS. THIS AMOUNT S TO UTILIZATION OF BORROWED FUNDS FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE INTER EST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BORROWED FUNDS WHICH WERE UTILIZED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED U/S 36(1)(VII) OF THE AC T. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE KERALA HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BABY AND CO. REPORTED IN 254 ITR 248 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SO LONG AS THE ADVANCES ARE INTEREST FREE, THE AO IS P ERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE INTEREST IN PROPORTION TO THE ADVAN CES MADE. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST ON THE BORROWED FUNDS AT 14.5%. IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL POSITION, THE AO HELD T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST O N THE INTER-CORPORATE DEPOSITS AT 14.5% WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS. 18,53,245/ -, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 12. ON AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE ST ATED THAT THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED DEPOSIT OF RS. 127.81 LAKHS TO PR AGA TOOLS LTD., HYDERABAD A CENTRAL GOVT. PSU. THE SAID DEPOSIT WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR 1992 AND AS PER THE TERMS OF DEPOSIT THE A MOUNT CARRY INTEREST. HOWEVER, AS THE SAID PSU BECAME SICK WITH IN THE MEANING OF 5 ITA NOS. 484 & 485/H/16 SPONGE IRON INDIA LTD. (MERGED WITH NMDC LTD.) PROVISIONS OF BIFR, INTEREST IS NOT PROVIDED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. BEFORE THE AO IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE DEPOSIT WAS MADE IN THE YEAR 1992 AND IT WAS AGREED BY THE SAID PSU THAT IT WOULD PAY INTEREST. INTEREST WAS NOT CHARGED AS THE SAID PSU BECAME SICK. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND THE DEPOSIT MADE. THEREFORE, PLE ADED THAT NO PART OF THE INTEREST PAID BE DISALLOWED. HOWEVER, T HE AO HELD THAT THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST ON THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 127.81 LAKHS IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE I.T. ACT. 13. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE FACT THAT THE DEPO SITS WERE MADE IN THE YEAR 1992 WITH AN AGREEMENT TO RECEIVE INTER EST THEREON, PROVE THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT BASICALLY THE D EPOSITS WERE MADE WITH AN OBJECTIVE IN VIEW TO EARN INTEREST THEREON. IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE THAT WHEN THE POSSIBILITY OF RECOVERY OF THE PRINCI PAL AMOUNT ITSELF BECOMES DOUBTFUL ON SUCH A COMPANY BECOMING SICK, LIKELIHOOD OF RECEIVING INTEREST ON SUCH DEPOSITS BECOMES EVEN MO RE DIFFICULT THAT TOO IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEES CA SE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE A CONSCIOUS POLICY DECISI ON NOT TO PROVIDE FOR INTEREST ON THE SAID DEPOSITS WHICH FAC T HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN BY DISALLOWING A PORTION OF INTEREST LIABILIT Y OF THE ASSESSEE. CIT(A) HELD THAT THUS THE PSU BECOMING SICK AND BEI NG NOT ABLE TO PAY INTEREST TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLO WING THE INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS. 18,53,245/- TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 15. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE STATED TH AT THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 1992 PROVIDED DEPOSIT OF RS. 127.81 LAK HS TO PRAGA TOOLS LTD., HYDERABAD A CENTRAL GOVT. PSU. AS PER THE TER MS OF THE DEPOSIT IT CARRIED INTEREST. HOWEVER AS THE SAID PSU BECAME SICK WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF BIFR, TAKING A PRUDENT VIE W INTEREST WAS NOT 6 ITA NOS. 484 & 485/H/16 SPONGE IRON INDIA LTD. (MERGED WITH NMDC LTD.) PROVIDED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SINCE 1995-96 ONWARDS. HE REFERRED TO THE OBSERVATIONS THAT CIT (A) IN HER OR DER NOTED THAT 'IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE THAT WHEN THE POSSIBILITY OF RECOVER Y OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT ITSELF BECOMES DOUBTFUL ON SUCH A COMPANY BE COMING SICK, LIKELIHOOD OF RECEIVING INTEREST ON SUCH DEPOSITS B ECOMES EVEN MORE DIFFICULT.' DESPITE KNOWING THAT THE INTEREST PAYME NTS WERE NOT REGULAR, THE CIT(A) CONCLUDED CONTRADICTORILY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN INTEREST FREE INTER-CORPORATE DEPOSIT BY TAKI NG A LOAN BEARING INTEREST OF 14.5%. THE VERY FACT THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THE YEAR 1992 WITH AN AGREEMENT TO RECEIVE INTEREST, PR OVES THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE WITH A N OBJECTIVE TO EARN INCOME IN THE FORM OF INTEREST THEREON. 15.1 LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER IS SQUARELY COVERED IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE AY. 2001-02 AND 2003-04 IN THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) -IV UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 28/04/2006 WHEREBY HE ALLOWED ASSESSES CLAIM STATIN G THAT, 'WHEN THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS MADE A CONSCIOUS POLICY D ECISION NOT TO PROVIDE FOR INTEREST ON THE SAID DEPOSITS WHICH FAC T HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL, NO ADVERSE VIEW CAN BE TAKEN BY DISALLOWING A PORTION OF THE INTEREST LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, T HEREFORE, THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING INTEREST PAYMENT. 16. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A). 17. CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND P ERUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD AS WELL AS ORDERS OF REVEN UE AUTHORITIES. IT IS A FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS LENT ADVANCES TO A COMPANY , WHICH HAS BECOME SICK AS PER THE BIFR NORMS SUBSEQUENTLY. IT IS OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND AS PER PRUDENCE , THE INTEREST AND ADVANCES ARE UNREALIZABLE. THE INTEREST BEING R EVENUE IN NATURE NOT PROVIDED IN THE BOOKS. FROM THE RECORD, IT IS N OT ESTABLISHED THERE 7 ITA NOS. 484 & 485/H/16 SPONGE IRON INDIA LTD. (MERGED WITH NMDC LTD.) IS A LINK BETWEEN THE ADVANCE MADE AND FUNDS BORROW ED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH INFORMATION, WE ALSO H OLD THAT THEY ARE DISTINCT TRANSACTION AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR A NY COMPARISON. AS INTEREST IS NOT RECOVERABLE IN FACT AND ONLY THE RE ALIZABLE INCOME ALONE CAN BE BROUGHT TO BOOKS. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY INCURRED INTEREST EXPENSES, WHICH CANNOT BE DISTURB ED WITH THE ABOVE SAID UNREALIZABLE INTEREST INCOME. WHEN THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ACTUAL BORROWIN GS WERE MADE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ADVANCE TO THE SICK COMPA NY, IN ABSENCE OF SUCH FINDINGS, INTEREST DISALLOWANCE ON NOTIONAL BA SIS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HENCE, GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS IS SUE ARE ALLOWED. 18. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 4, WITH REGARD TO THE PRO VISION FOR NON MOVING STORES OF RS. 11,86,000/-. THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAID PROVISION AND THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF TH E AO BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS REGAR DING THIS PROVISION. 19. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE PROVISION FOR NO N MOVING STORES OF RS. 11,86,000/- DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE ASCERTAINED L IABILITIES AND FURTHER ERRED IN APPLYING ITEM (C) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SE CTION 115JB OF THE ACT. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES: 1. DCIT VS. BECTON DICKINSON INDIA (P) LTD.., ITA NO. 904/DEL.2010. 2. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. VS. DCIT [2005] 9 8 TTJ DELHI 565. 20. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORIT IES. 21. CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORDS AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. FROM SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR, THE ASSESSEE HAD WRITTE N OFF THE VALUE OF NON-MOVING STOCK AS PER THE VALUATION POLICY OF THE COMPANY. THIS WRITE OFF CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNASCERTAINED LIA BILITY FOR THE 8 ITA NOS. 484 & 485/H/16 SPONGE IRON INDIA LTD. (MERGED WITH NMDC LTD.) PURPOSE OF SECTION 115JB. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBM ITTED ANY VALUATION REPORT BEFORE US, AS THE COMPANY HAS BECO ME SICK AND DETAILS OF RECORDS ARE NOT TRACEABLE. CONSIDERING T HE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH ASSESSEE THAT THE STOCK WI LL BE VALUED AT COST OR MARKET VALUE, WHICHEVER IS LESS. THIS IS TH E RECOMMENDED METHOD OF VALUATION. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD DETERMIN ED THE REALIZABLE VALUE OF STOCK, THE DIFFERENCE, HAS TO B E WRITTEN OFF FROM THE BOOKS. FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 115JB, THE BOOK P ROFIT WILL BE ASCERTAINED AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PROFIT DECLARED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS. THE ADJUSTMENT INVOLVES THE ADDI TION OF CERTAIN UNASCERTAINED LIABILITIES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LOSS WRITTEN OFF DUE TO WRITE OFF OF STOCK CANNOT BE TERMED AS UNASCERTA INED LIABILITIES. THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE AO TO DETERMINE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB IS NOT PROPER. HENCE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE AO ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED. 22. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH AUGUST, 2016 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAH MAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 10 TH AUGUST, 2016 KV COPY TO:- 1) M/S NMDC LTD., (SPONGE IRON INDIA LTD. MERGED WI TH NMDC) KHANJI BHAVAN, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD 500 028. 2) DCIT, CIRCLE 3(2), HYDERABAD 3) CIT(A) - 4, HYDERABAD 4) PR. CIT - 4, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 9 ITA NOS. 484 & 485/H/16 SPONGE IRON INDIA LTD. (MERGED WITH NMDC LTD.) S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S/PS 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.P.S./PS 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 ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER