DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Abhisar Buildcon (P) Ltd., Delhi

ITA 4877/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2780 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SAROHA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Search and seizure
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCHES: C NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O. P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I. T. APPEAL NOS. 4877 & 4878/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 & 2008-09. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER M/S. ABHISAR BUILDWELL (P) LTD., OF INCOME TAX, VS. 1711, S. P. MUKHERJEE MARG, CENTRAL CIRCLE : 4, DELHI 110 006. N E W D E L H I. PAN : AAFCA 6845 D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R. S. SINGHVI, C. A.; & SHRI SATYAJEET GOEL, C. A.; DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A. K. SAROHA, CIT [DR]; DATE OF HEARING : 19.06.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.07.2017 O R D E R . PER I. C. SUDHIR, J. M. : THE REVENUE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND COMMITTED LEGAL ERROR BY NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS IN ITS ENTIRETY AS BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE CASE OF SH. ANIL BHATIA BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WORDS TOTAL INCOME AS USED IN SECTION 153A WOULD ONLY MEAN UNDISCLOSED INCOME DISCOVERED FROM SEIZED / INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS PERVERSE INASMUCH AS IT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE MATERIAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADOPTING A RESTRICTIVE AND PEDANTIC INTERPRETATION OF THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT. 5, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WORDS TOTAL INCOME AS USED IN SECTION 153A WOULD ONLY MEAN INCOME UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH WHEN THE DECISION OF THE ILONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY VS. DCIT DATED 09-08-2014 HAS HELD THAT TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES INCOME UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH AND ANY OTHER INCOME. 6. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS AND IS NOT TENABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 3 2. HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES IN VIEW OF ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ABOVE GROUNDS IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENTS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE NOT ABATED. 3.1 IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS ON THE ISSUE THE LD. CIT [DR] HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH THIS SUBMISSION THAT SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT ON THE DIRECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, HENCE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE SPECIAL AUDIT UNDER SECTION 142(2A) WAS REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF COMPLEXITY OF ACCOUNTS, MULTIPLICITY OF TRANSACTIONS IN THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, HENCE THE REPORT SUBMITTED IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SAID DIRECTION WAS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. HE 4 SUBMITTED THAT SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT WAS LINKED WITH SEARCH. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE WORD INCRIMINATING IN THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (2015) 61 TAXMAN.COM 412 (DEL.) AND REFERRED PARA NO. 37 THEREOF. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER CLAUSE (I) TO PARA NO. 37 OF THE DECISION ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A(I) WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUED TO THE PERSON SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR SIX YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. REFERRING CLAUSE NO. (III) AND (IV) OF THE SAID PARAGRAPH OF THE DECISION, THE LD. CIT [DR] SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL EXERCISE NORMAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE 6 YEARS PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POWER TO ASSESS AND REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE AFOREMENTIONED 6 YEARS IN SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EACH OF THE 6 YEARS. THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE 6 ASSESSMENT YEARS IN WHICH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX. HE CONTENDED THAT SECTION 153A DOES NOT SAY THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN 5 THE COURSE OF SEARCH, OR OTHER POST SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT [DR] SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI ANIL KUMAR BHATIA 24 TAXMAN.COM 98 (DEL.) ALSO SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THERE CAN ONLY BE SINGLE ASSESSMENT. THUS, IN A CASE WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO OPTION, BUT TO MAKE ADDITION, OF COURSE, ON MERITS, IN THE SAME ASSESSMENT FOR WHICH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A HAD BEEN ISSUED. HE ASSERTED THAT ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE BEYOND SEIZED MATERIAL. IN THIS REGARD HE ALSO REFERRED THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF FILATEX INDIA LTD., (2014)PIOL 1325HCDEL.IT. HE CONTENDED FURTHER THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) THAT THERE WAS ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3), PRIOR TO SEARCH, THEREFORE, NO COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS ARE BEING DISTURBED. THE LD. CIT [DR] SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS WRONGLY INTERPRETED THE CITED JUDGEMENTS BEFORE HIM. THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF E. N. GOPAKUMAR VS. CIT (2016) 75 TAXMAN.COM 215 (KER.) AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) AND HAS RETURNED A RATIO THAT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS GENERATED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A(I)(A) CAN BE CONCLUDED AGAINST INTEREST OF ASSESSEE INCLUDING MAKING ADDITIONS EVEN 6 WITHOUT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL BEING AVAILABLE AGAINST ASSESSEE IN SEARCH UNDER SECTION 1323 ON THE BASIS OF WHICH NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A(I)(A) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT [DR] POINTED OUT THAT RECENTLY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SHEVA LTD.) (2015) 64 TAXMAN.COM 34 (SC) HAS GRANTED SLP AGAINST HIGH COURTS RULING THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENTS WHICH HAVE BECOME FINAL IF NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND DURING SEARCH OR DURING 153A PROCEEDINGS. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO. (2014) 49 TAXMAN.COM 98 (KAR.) HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE EVEN WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL BEING AVAILABLE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. 3.2 THE LD. AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER WITH THIS SUBMISSION THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 21.01.2011. SPECIAL AUDIT UNDER SECTION 142(2A) WAS DIRECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUCH AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE SUBMITTED THAT SPECIAL AUDIT WAS DIRECTED IN THE CASE 7 OF DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- (I) PR. CIT VS. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/S. FERNS N PETALS & OTHERS, ITA. NOS. 306 AND 307/2017 [ DECISION DATED 25.05.2017 (DEL.HC) ]; (II) CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (2016) 380 ITR 573 (DEL.); (III) CIT VS. PINAKI MISRA (2017) 392 ITR 347 (DEL.). 4. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE CITED DECISIONS, WE FIND THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IS BINDING UPON THE TRIBUNAL. IN ITS RECENT DECISION ON 25.05.2017 IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. MEETA GUTGUTIA (SUPRA), THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI AFTER DISCUSSING SEVERAL DECISIONS INCLUDING ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA (2013) 352 ITR 493 (DEL.), FILATEX INDIA LTD. VS. CIT (2014) 49 TAXMAN.COM 465 (DEL.) AND CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (2016) 380 ITR 573 (DEL.) HAS BEEN PLEASED TO APPROVE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE INVOCATION OF SECTION 153A BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION THEREIN, 8 WAS WITHOUT ANY LEGAL BASIS AS THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL QUA EACH OF ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DID NOT DISTURB THE LEGAL POSITION ON THE ISSUE SETTLED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) HAS BEEN PLEASED TO SUMMARIZE THE LEGAL POSITION EMERGING FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A(I) OF THE ACT READ WITH THE PROVISOS THERETO, IN PARA NO. 37 OF ITS DECISION, WHICH IS BEING REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- 37. ON A CONSPECTUS OF SECTION 153 A(1) OF THE ACT, READ WITH THE PROVISOS THERETO, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS, THE LEGAL POSITION THAT EMERGES IS AS UNDER :- I. ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 A(1) WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUED TO THE PERSON SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR SIX AYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. II. ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS PENDING ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH SHALL ABATE. THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SUCH AYS WILL HAVE TO BE COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS AS A FRESH EXERCISE. III. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL EXERCISE NORMAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE SIX YEARS PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT AY 9 IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS AND REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME' OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SIX YEARS IN SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX YEARS. IN OTHER WORDS THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX AYS 'IN WHICH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX'. IV. ALTHOUGH SECTION 153A DOES NOT SAY THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, OR OTHER POST-SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH CAN BE RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT 'CAN BE ARBITRARY OR MADE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL. OBVIOUSLY AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL.' V. IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE. THE WORD 'ASSESS' IN SECTION 153A IS RELATABLE TO ABATED PROCEEDINGS (I.E. THOSE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH) AND THE WORD 'REASSESS' TO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. VI. IN SO FAR AS PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERNED, THE JURISDICTION TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A MERGES INTO ONE. ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE SEPARATELY FOR EACH AY ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SEARCH AND ANY OTHER 10 MATERIAL EXISTING OR BROUGHT ON THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. VII. COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. 4.1 WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IS REQUIRED TO BE READ AND UNDERSTOOD IN ITS ENTIRETY INSTEAD OF READING SOME PORTION OF IT HERE AND THERE. WHEN THE ABOVE CITED PARAGRAPH OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) IS READ IN ITS TOTALITY, THE RATIO LAID DOWN THEREIN COMES OUT THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND IN ABSENCE OF ABETMENT OF ASSESSMENT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WHEN WE EXAMINE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 21.01.2011 IN DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL GROUP OF CASES. 11 IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CAME INTO EXISTENCE AS A RESULT OF DEMERGER OF RUBBER THREAD UNIT OF DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., DIRECTION UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE I. T. ACT FOR GETTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AUDITED FROM AN AUDITOR APPOINTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE ISSUED. IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153A IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND IN ABSENCE OF ABETMENT OF ASSESSMENT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN ABSENCE OF REBUTTAL OF THESE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS), THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE AUDIT REPORT DIRECTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., IN OUR VIEW, CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH ASSESSMENTS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WERE ABETTED. WE THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE 12 CITED DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE SAME IS UPHELD. THE GROUNDS INVOLVING THE ISSUE ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 5. IN RESULT, APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 6. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 04 TH JULY, 2017 . SD/- SD/- ( O. P. KANT ) ( I. C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : THE 04 TH JULY, 2017 . *MEHTA* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT; 2. RESPONDENT; 3. CIT; 4. CIT (APPEALS); 5. DR, ITAT, ND. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 13 DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON 04.07.2017 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 04.07.2017 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 14