PANKAJ WADHAWA, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 5007/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1106 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V VIDHYADHAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAN D SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5005/MUM/2017, A.Y: 2008-09 ITA NO. 5007/MUM/2017, A.Y: 2013-14 SHRI PANKAJ WADHWA, 8, CANDY HOUSE, MANDLIK ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI 400 004. PAN AABPW0921B VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(4), ROOM NO. 564, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI 400 021. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 5698/MUM/2016, A.Y: 2012-13 SHRI PANKAJ WADHWA, 8, CANDY HOUSE, MANDLIK ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI 400 004. PAN AABPW0921B VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 1(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAKASH JOTWANI REVENUE BY : SHRI V. VIDHYADHAR (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 28.1 1.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2018 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM: THE ABOVE BUNCH OF CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EE CONCERNS A.YS. 2008-09, 2012-13 AND 2013-14. AS INFORMED, C ONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE INTERCONNECTE D. HENCE, ALL THE THREE CASES WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED BY THI S COMMON ORDER. 2 ITA NOS. 5005 & 5007/MUM/2017. & 5698/MUM/2016 PANKAJ WADHAWA, MUMBAI ITA NO. 5005/MUM/2017, A.Y 2008-09. 2. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A. NO. 5005/MUM/2017 CONCERNING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 FO R ADJUDICATION PURPOSES. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-3, MUMBAI ERRED ON FACTS AND IN L AW IN UPHOLDING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 BY HOLDING THAT TH E APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVIDED OUT ANY REASONS TO NOT INVOKE SEC. 147 OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT C ONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT IN CONNECTION WITH THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT TH ERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE R EOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147. HENCE, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AMOUNTED TO CHANGE OF OPINION AND HENCE THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS BAD IN LAW. 5. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESS MENT U/S 147 MAY BE HELD TO BAD IN LAW AND THE ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S 1 47 MAY BE ANNULLED. B. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ASSESSING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS. 3,09,372/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS. 155/-. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHO LDING THE ORDER OF THE A.O ASSESSING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS. 3,09,372/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS. 155/ -. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT TH E APPELLANT HAD ONLY 50% SHARES IN FLAT NO. 15 AND THE BALANCE 50% WAS O WNED BY THE APPELLANTS MOTHER, WHO WAS RESIDING IN THE SAID FL AT AND HENCE THE SAID FLAT COULD NOT BE LET OUT BY THE APPELLANT. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) E RRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE SOCIETY HAD AT THE TIME OF TR ANSFER OF FLAT NO. 15 PLACED A CONDITION THAT THE SAID FLAT COULD NOT BE LET AND WAS TO BE USED ONLY FOR 3 ITA NOS. 5005 & 5007/MUM/2017. & 5698/MUM/2016 PANKAJ WADHAWA, MUMBAI SELF OCCUPATION. HENCE, THERE COULD BE NO ANNUAL L ETABLE VALUE WITH RESPECT TO THE SAID FLAT. 9. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE A.O MAY BE DIRECTED TO ASSESSEE THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS. 155/- AS RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT. C. GENERAL 10. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDI CE TO THE ONE ANOTHER AND THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND , DELETE OR MODIFY6 ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMI TTED THAT THE A.O HAS WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S 147 OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) WITHOUT FULFILMENT OF PREREQUISITE S OF CARDINAL NATURE AND CONSEQUENTLY PASSED AN ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S 1 47 OF THE ACT WHICH IS NULL AND VOID. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT HE FIRST SEEK T O PRESS INCURABLE LEGAL DEFECT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION FOR ADJUDICATI ON. 4. CONTINUING FURTHER, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS EARLIER ASSESSED U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. THEREAF TER, A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 30.03. 2015. THEREFORE, THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE COMPLETED AS SESSMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE TESTED ON THE TOUCH STONE OF THE MAI N PROVISION AS WELL AS THE FIRST PROVISO TO SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT. TH E LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER ADVERTED TO REASONS RECORDED AS APPEARING IT PAGE NO. 9 OF THE PAPER BO OK WHICH READS AS UNDER: DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE O WNS TWO PROPERTIES AT WORLI, MUMBAI AND INCOME FROM ONE OF THE PROPERTY I S NOT OFFERED TO TAX. AS PER PROVISION OF SEC. 23(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, ON E HOUSE AS PER THE CHOICE OF THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE TREATED AS SELF-OCCUPIED AND THE SECOND HOUSE SHALL BE TREATED AS DEEMED LET-OUT AND THE ANNUAL LETTABLE V ALUE OF THE SECOND HOUSE SHALL BE DETERMINED AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 23(1) OF TH E ACT. 4 ITA NOS. 5005 & 5007/MUM/2017. & 5698/MUM/2016 PANKAJ WADHAWA, MUMBAI IN VIEW OF ABOVE I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THER E IS AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF DEEMED LET-OUT PROPERTY FOR TH E A.Y 2008-09. I AM FULLY SATISFIED THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. WITH REFERENCE TO THE AFORESTATED REASONS RECORD ED, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THE REASONS RECORDED ITSELF THAT ALL T HE RELEVANT FACTS WERE PLACED AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE A.O HAD COMPLETED ASSESSMENT BASED ON SUCH FACTS. IT WAS I NTER-ALIA MADE KNOWN TO THE A.O THAT ASSESSEE OWNS TWO PROPERTIES AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE TAXABILITY OF DEEMED RENTAL INCOME WITH REFERENCE TO ONE OF PROPERTIES IN TERMS OF SEC. 23(1) R.W.S 23(4) OF THE IT ACT WAS PRESUMABLY PRESENT TO THE M IND OF THE A.O. THEREAFTER, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT FROM A BARE READING OF THE REASONS RECORDED, IT WILL BE APPAREN T THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION WHATSOEVER ON THE PART OF THE A.O AS TO WHETHER THERE IS ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE MATERIAL FATS FULLY AND TRULY AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT IN TERMS OF FIRST PROVISO TO SEC. 147 OF THE ACT WHICH IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT W AS CONTENDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS ALLEGATION OF NON-DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS, THE JURISDICTION UNDER 147 OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE USURPED IN THE INSTANCE CASE. THE LD. AR ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED TH AT THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT ANY LEGAL FOUNDATION. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR ALSO REFERR ED TO THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y 200-10 IN ITA NO. 5006/MUM/2014 ORDER DATED 16. 11.2018 WHERE THE ACTION U/S 147 OF THE ACT WAS STRUCK DOWN ON SIMILAR FACTS. 6. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE A.O AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPRESS OP INION ON THE ISSUE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, IT WAS QUITE PERM ISSIBLE FOR THE A.O 5 ITA NOS. 5005 & 5007/MUM/2017. & 5698/MUM/2016 PANKAJ WADHAWA, MUMBAI IN LAW TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 147 OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS ON THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSMENT H AS BEEN REOPENED AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSES SMENT YEAR. IT IS ALSO ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS EARLIER COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE FIRST PROVIS O GETS TRIGGERED WHICH CASTS ONEROUS OBLIGATIONS ON THE A.O BEFORE I NVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 147 OF THE ACT. THE CONDITIONS POSTULATED IN MAIN PROVISION AS WELL AS THE FIRST PROVISO ARE THEREFOR E REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED SCRUPULOUSLY TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS. AS PER THE FIRST PROVISO, NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN U/S 147 O F THE ACT UNLESS THERE IS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO D ISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. THE REASONS DISCLOSED TO THE ASSESSEE IN FACT INDICATES OTHERWI SE. FROM THE REASONS RECORDED IT APPEARS THAT THE RELEVANT FACTS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE A.O AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL AS SESSMENT. COUPLED WITH THIS, WE DO NOT SEE ANY ALLEGATION FROM THE A. O AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE REASONS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 148( 2) OF THE ACT TOWARDS ANY SUCH FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E TO DISCLOSE RELEVANT FACTS FULLY AND TRULY. THEREFORE, APPAREN TLY THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN THE FIRST PROVISO ARE NOT COMPLIED WI TH AND THEREFORE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT SEEKING TO RE-O PEN THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT IS CLEARLY TIMED BARRED. THE REASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS THEREFORE CLEARLY B AD IN LAW AND REQUIRES TO BE QUASHED. 8. ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT THE ACTION UNDER SECTION 1 47 OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, THE CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 IS CLEARLY VOID AT THE THRESHOLD. CONSEQUENTLY, THE REASSESSMENT ORDER SO PASSED IS SET ASIDE AND CANCE LLED. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALL OWED. 6 ITA NOS. 5005 & 5007/MUM/2017. & 5698/MUM/2016 PANKAJ WADHAWA, MUMBAI ITA NO. 5689/MUM/2016, A.Y 2012-13 10. AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS SOUG HT TO IMPUGN THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) (I) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDI TION UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY; AND (II) DETERMINATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON TRANSFER OF MUTUAL FUND UNITS AT RS . 5,95,975/- AS AGAINST REVISED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 22,18, 723/-. 11. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR FOR THE A SSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED A NNUAL LETTABLE VALUE (ALV) FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS. 217/- (NET) HAVING REGARD TO THE MUNICIPAL RENTABLE VALUE. THE A.O, HOWEVER, HA S SUBSTITUTED THE ALV DETERMINED AS PER THE MUNICIPAL RENTABLE VALUE BY SO CALLED REASONABLE AND EXPECTED RENT NOTIONALLY VALUED BY T HE A.O AT RS. 8,00,317/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF TAX ABLE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY U/S 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE NEXT REFERRED TO VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS I NCLUDING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. TIP TOP TYPOGRAPHY, [2014] 368 ITR 330 (BOMBAY), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT FOR DETERMINATION OF ALV, THE MUNICIPAL RENTAB LE VALUE CAN BE ADOPTED BY THE A.O IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES. T HE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ACCORDING LY SUBMITTED THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN ENHANCING THE DE EMED INCOME BY WAY OF SUBSTITUTED ALV IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 12. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAV E WRONGLY COMPUTED THE ALV OF ITS PROPERTY (DEEMED LET OUT PR OPERTY) UNDER SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT BASED ON SOME UNAUTHENT IC INFORMATION AS PER SOME LOCAL ENQUIRY INSTEAD OF ADOPTING PLAUSIBL E METHOD OF DETERMINATION OF ALV WITH REFERENCE TO MUNICIPAL RE NTABLE VALUE. IT IS FURTHER CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN TERMS OF SE C. 23(1)(A) OF THE 7 ITA NOS. 5005 & 5007/MUM/2017. & 5698/MUM/2016 PANKAJ WADHAWA, MUMBAI ACT, ACTUAL RENT OR MUNICIPAL RENTABLE VALUE WHICHE VER IS HIGHER, SHOULD ORDINARILY BE TAKEN BY THE A.O FOR THE PURPO SES OF COMPUTING THE ALV. WE STRAIGHTAWAY FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA AND ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SI MILAR CIRCUMSTANCES BY CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF OWAIS M. HUSSAIN VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 4320/MUM/2016 D ATED 11.05.2018; AND IN THE CASE OF M/S EUROPA CHEMICALS PVT LTD., VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 387, 388 & 390/MUM/2018 DATED 15.06. 2018, WHEREIN THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE IS A RECOGNISED BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF ALV, HAVING REGARD TO THE DEC ISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TIP TOP TY POGRAPHY (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL PROPOSITION EMERGING FROM THE PRECEDENTS CITED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFIC ATION FOR THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN DISREGARDING THE MUNICI PAL RATEABLE VALUE FOR DETERMINATION OF ESTIMATED ALV AND SUBSTITUTION THEREOF BY SOME EXPECTED RENT BASED ON SOME UNAUTHENTIC INFORMATION . CONSEQUENTLY, THE ACTION OF THE DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THIS SCORE REQUIRES TO BE CANCELL ED. 14. IN THE RESULT GRIEVANCE OF THE ON THIS SCORE IS RESOLVED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. SECOND GROUND CONCERNS QUANTIFICATION OF LONG T ERM CAPITAL LOSS ON TRANSFER OF MUTUAL FUND UNITS. 16. AS POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, CERTA IN EVIDENCES ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED TO SUPPORT THE RE VISED CLAIM BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE CON SIDER IT EXPEDIENT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO AVAIL AFRESH OPPORTUNITY FOR CORROBORATION OF TH E REVISED LOSS SO CLAIMED AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW DENOVO . NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE A.O SHALL ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 8 ITA NOS. 5005 & 5007/MUM/2017. & 5698/MUM/2016 PANKAJ WADHAWA, MUMBAI 17. CONSEQUENTLY, THE GROUND RAISED IN THIS REGARD IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ITA NO. 5007/MUM/2017, A.Y 2013-14 19. IN PARITY WITH THE DISCUSSION IN ITA NO. 5698/M UM/2016 FOR THE A.Y 2012-13 IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, THE SOLITA RY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE CONCERNING ADDITION UNDER HEAD HOUSE P ROPERTY IS ALLOWED. THE A.O IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,64,108/- MADE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE P ROPERTY. 20. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 5007/MUM/ 2017 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 21. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF DIRECTION NOTED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH NOV, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( RAVISH SOOD ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 30/11/2018 KRK / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/ 9 ITA NOS. 5005 & 5007/MUM/2017. & 5698/MUM/2016 PANKAJ WADHAWA, MUMBAI S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON PC 28.11.2018 JM/AM 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 29.11.2018 JM/AM 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/A M 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER 10. DRAFT DICTATION ENCLOSED IN FILE