N.S.N. JEWELLERS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 8(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5021/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7942 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARIGOVIND SINGH
• Keywords: Deemed dividend; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGH AVAN (JM) ITA NO. 5021/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2006-07 M/S. N.S.N. JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO. 97, PHASE-II, 16 TH ROAD, MIDC, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400 093 PAN- AACCN 0544R VS. THE ITO - 8(2)(3), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR PARIDA MRS. SANJUKTA CHOWDHARY RESPONDENT BY: SHRI HARI GOVIND SINGH O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 9.7.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-VIII FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U /S. 143(3) AND ASSESSED RS. 52,25,000/-BEING AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM AN ASSOCIATE CONCERN WHO HAS A COMMON SHAREHOLDER WITH THE ASSES SEE, AS DEEMED DIVIDEND REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN ITS CASE . 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD AS FOLLOWS: IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSES SEE FILED A COPY OF BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2006-07. ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANC E SHEET, IT IS ITA NO. 5021/MUM/2009 2 OBSERBVED THAT THE AMOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS INCREA SED FROM RS. 25,83,500 AS ON 1.4.2005 TO RS. 78,08,500 AS ON 31. 3.2006. A LETTER DT. 20.10.2008 WAS ISSUED AND THE ASSESSEE W AS ASKED TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS ALO NGWITH THEIR CONFIRMATIONS GIVING ADDRESS, PAN, ASSESSING OFFICE R AND LATEST COPY OF THEIR RETURN OF INCOME, COMPUTATION OF INCOME, B ALANCE SHEET ETC. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE,E IT IS SEEN THAT THE UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 78,08,500 WERE OBTAINED FROM ONE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS SHRI SHISHIR B. NEVATIA (RS. 83,500) A ND A GROUP COMPANY, M/S. SUNJEWELS INDIA PVT. LTD. (RS. 77,25, 000). AS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN WAS OBTAINED F ROM GROUP COMPANY, M/S. SUNJEWELS INDIA PVT. LTD THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT & LOSS AND SHAREHOLDI NG PATTERN OF THE SAID COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE REQUISITE DETAILS FROM W HICH IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE SHAREHOLDING PATTERN OF THE ASSES SEE COMPANY AND SUNJEWELS INDIA PVT. LTD. (SIPL) HAD A COMMON S HAREHOLDING PATTERN AS UNDER: SUNJEWELS INDIA PVT. LTD NSN JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. SR. NO. NAME OF THE SHAREHOLDER NO. OF SHARES %AGE NO. OF SHARES %AGE 1. SHISHIR B. NEVATIA 574250 61.25% 5000 50% 2. MRS. KAVITA S. NEVATIA 166250 17.73% 5000 50% 3. KAPIL S. NEVATIA 122000 13.02% 4. NEERAJ S. NEVATIA 75000 8.00% TOTAL 937500 100.00% 10000 100% THUS SHRI SHISHIR B. NEVATIA AND MRS. KAVITA S. NEV ATIA HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST (MORE THAN 20% SHAREHOLDINGS) IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ALSO HOLD MORE THAN 10% SHARES IN SIPL. BOTH THESE GROUP COMPANIES ARE NOT INVOLVED IN MON EY-LENDING BUSINESS AND PUBLIC ARE ALSO NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INTE RESTED IN ANY OF THEM. ITA NO. 5021/MUM/2009 3 AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET OF SIPL, IT HAD A RESERVE S & SURPLUS OF RS. 10,12,31,697 AS ON 31.3.2006 COMPRISING OF P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND RESERVES AS UNDER: (I) GENERAL RESERVE RS. 1,07,00,000/- (II) SHARE CAPITAL REDEMPTION RESERVE RS. 6,25,000/- (III) PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT RS. 8,99,06,697/- -------------------------- TOTAL RS.10,12,31,697/- ============== THUS, SIPL HAD AN ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF RS. 8,99,06 ,697/- AS ON 31.3.2006 (RS. 8,36,35,540 AS ON 31.3.2005). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT FRESH LOANS OBTAINED D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM THE SAID COMPANY SHOULD NO T BE ASSESSED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) R.W.S. 56 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ITS REPLY VIDE LETTER DT. 27.10.2008 AND FURTHER DETAILS ALONGWITH LETTER DT. 6.11.2008. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED A LETTER DT. 6.11.2008 FURNI SHING THEREWITH: (A) AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE AUDITOR OF THE COMPANY (B) CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SIPL DECLARING THAT THE AMOUN T GIVEN BY TEM TO THE ASSESSEE WAS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ; AND (C) CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE DECLARING THAT T HE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THEM FROM SIPL WAS SHARE APPLICA TION MONEY FOR EQUITY SHARES IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. (D) COPY OF FORM NO. 2 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE R OC IN F.Y. 2006-07, IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CERTIFICATE FOR H AVING ISSUED EQUITY SHARES 4. AFTER CONSIDERING ITS REPLY, THE AO HAS REJECTED THE SAME GIVING THE FOLLOWING REASONS. IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.2005 AND 31.3.2006, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 25,00,000/- AND RS. 52,25,000/- RESPECTIVELY ACCEPTED FROM SIPL HAVE BEEN GROUPED ITA NO. 5021/MUM/2009 4 AND SHOWN AS UNSECURED LOANS AND NOT AS SHARE APP LICATION MONEY AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SIMILARLY, IN THE B ALANCE SHEET OF SIPL, THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ALSO BE EN SHOWN AS LOANS AND ADVANCES AND NOT AS INVESTMENT OR SHARE APPL ICATION MONEY. THE AO HAS ALSO GIVEN THE LEDGER EXTRACT OF SIPL AS APP EARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AT PAGE 3 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER. 5. FROM THE SCRUTINY OF ACCOUNTS OF BOTH THE COMPAN IES, THE AO HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE CONVERSION OF THE LOAN FROM SIPL INTO SHARE CAPITAL IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IS NOTHING BUT AN AFTER-THOUGHT ON REALIZING THE ATTRACTING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) OF TH E I.T. ACT. FURTHER, THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) AT GREAT LENGTH AND RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE COURT. A) CITVS L.ALAGUSUNDARAM CHETTIAR (1977) 109 ITR 508, 512(MAD) B) NANNIT LAL C. JHAVERI VS. K.K. SEN, (1965) 56 ITR 1 98, 207(SC) C) CIT VS P.K. BADIANI (1970) 46 ITR 3769, 380-3(BOM) D) WALCHAND & CO. LTD. VS CIT, (1975) 100 ITR 598 (BOM ) E) MISS P. SARADA VS CIT, 299 ITR 444 F) CIT VS P.K. ABUBUCKER (259 ITR 507) G) CIT VS TPSH SELVA SAROJA (244 ITR 671) H) DCIT, RANGE 3(2) VS NIKKO TECHNOLOGIES (I) PVT. LTD (ITS NO. 4077/M/02 (A.Y. 1997-98) ORDER DT. 30.12.2005. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, THE AO HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED PAYMENTS W HICH ARE ONLY THE LOANS AND ADVANCES AND ARE COVERED BY THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT. HENCE, THE SAME WAS ASSE SSED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22)(E) R.W.S. 56 OF THE I.T. ACT AN D TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO. 5021/MUM/2009 5 8. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND ORDER OF THE AO. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS NOTIC ED THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS RECEIVED LOANS AND ADVANCES FROM M/S. S UNJEWEL INDIA PVT. LTD. (SIPL) OF RS. 25,00,000/- IN THE YE AR ENDING 31.3.2005 AND RS. 52,25,000/- IN THE YEAR ENDING 31 .3.2006. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS ENQUI RED AND NOTICED THAT AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET OF SIPL, THER E WAS AN ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF RS.8,99,-6,697/- AS ON 31.3.2 006. THE SHAREHOLDERS I.E. SHRI SHISHIR B. NEVATIA AND MRS. KAVITA S. NEVATIA HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AN D HOLD MORE THAN 10% SHARES IN SIPL. FROM THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE AO HAS ASKED THE APPELLANT COMPANY TO EXPLAIN WHY THE PROV ISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) MAY NOT BE INVOKED BY TREATING THESE NORMS AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. IN RESPONSE TO THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, T HE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS SUBMITTED ITS REPLY THAT IT WAS ACTUALL Y THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FOR EQUITY SHARES AND NOT LOANS A ND ADVANCES AS MENTIONED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BALANCE SHEE T OF THE COMPANY. TO EMPHASIZE THIS POINT OF VIEW, THE APPE LLANT COMPANY HAS SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE AUDITOR OF THE CO MPANY WHO HAS AUDITED THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. AFTER PERUSAL THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND THE AFFIDAVI T SUBMITTED, THE AO HAS REJECTED THE ARGUMENT OF THE COMPANY BECAUSE AS PER THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED LOANS A ND ADVANCES OF RS. 25,00,000/- FROM M/S. SIPL FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.2005 AND RS. 52,25,000/- FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN BOTH THE YEARS, THE ENTRIES HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S AND IN THE AUDITED P&L AND BALANCE SHEET AS LOANS AND ADVANCES UNDER THE HEAR UNSECURED LOANS. FURTHER THE AO HAS ALSO SCRU TINIZED THE BALANCE SHEET OF SIPL WHO HAS ADVANCED THESE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, THE AO HAS ALSO GIVEN THE EXTRACT OF THE LEDGER OF SIPL AS APP EARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT ALSO SHOWS THAT IN BOTH THE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED LOANS AND ADVANCES TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY. NOWHERE IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS OF THE BOTH COMPANIES FOR TWO YEARS IS MENTIONED THAT IT W AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. THE A FFIDAVIT FILED BY THE AUDITOR IS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT I T WAS A BONAFIDE MISTAKE BECAUSE MISTAKE CAN BE OCCURRED ONLY ONCE A ND IT CANNOT BE REPEATED AGAIN AND AGAIN AS IN THE CASE OF THE APPE LLANT COMPANY. THE LOANS AND ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM M/S. SIPL HAS BEEN SHOWN FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND 2006-07. HOWEVER, THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS AND AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF M/S. SIPL HAVE ALSO SHOWN LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR BOTH THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS. FROM THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE AUDITOR CANNOT BE ITA NO. 5021/MUM/2009 6 RELIED UPON. FURTHER, IT IS NOTICED THAT WHEN THE AO HAS GIVEN A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY TO EXPLA IN WHY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) MAY NOT BE INVOKED FOR TREATING THESE AMOUNTS OF LOANS AND ADVANCES AS DEEMED DIVIDEND ON LY THEN THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS TAKEN THE ARGUMENT THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE NOT LOANS AND ADVANCE BUT IT WAS A SHARE CAPIT AL MONEY. BEFORE THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE APPELLANT COMPAN Y HAS NEVER POINTED OUT THAT THE LOANS AND ADVANCES ARE THE SHA RE CAPITAL MONEY AND BY MISTAKE IT WAS SHOWN AS UNSECURED LOAN S. THESE FACTS ARE FURTHER PROVED THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS TAKEN THE ARGUMENT OF CONVERTING THE LOANS FROM SIPL INTO SHA RE CAPITAL WAS ONLY AN AFTER-THOUGHT WHILE REALIZING THAT THE PROV ISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) WILL BE ATTRACTED BECAUSE IT WAS APPLICAB LE ONLY IF IT WAS LOAN AND WILL NOT BE ATTRACTED IF IT WAS SHOWN AS S HARE CAPITAL MONEY. FROM THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS C ONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS RECEIVED UNSECURED LOANS FROM SIPL IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IN THE EARLIER YEAR I. E. A.Y. 2005-06. THE SHAREHOLDERS SHRI SHISHIR B. NEVATIA AND MRS. K AVITA S. NEVATIA HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AN D ALSO HOLD MORE THAN 10% SHARES IN SIPL. THE SIPL HAD ACCUMUL ATED PROFITS OF RS. 8,99,06,097/- AS ON 31.3.2006. ALL THESE CONDI TIONS ARE FULFILLED AS REQUIRED FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(2 2) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY ARE NOT HELPFUL AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. IT I S NOT A CASE OF MERE BOOK ENTRY BUT ACTUALLY THE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED LO ANS AND ADVANCES AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE FACTS. KEEPI NG IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND THE DECISION S OF THE HONBLE COURTS (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE AO PROVES THAT HE HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) IN THIS CAS E. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY TREATING THIS AMOUNT AS DEEMED DIVIDEND AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS. 52,25 ,000/- IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LTD. CIT(A), ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 11. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE FURNIS HED THE REQUISITE DETAILS FROM WHICH IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE SHAREHO LDING PATTERN OF THE ITA NO. 5021/MUM/2009 7 ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SUNJEWELS INDIA PVT. LTD. (SIP L) HAD A COMMON SHAREHOLDING PATTERN AS UNDER: SUNJEWELS INDIA PVT. LTD NSN JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. SR. NO. NAME OF THE SHAREHOLDER NO. OF SHARES %AGE NO. OF SHARES %AGE 1. SHISHIR B. NEVATIA 574250 61.25% 5000 50% 2. MRS. KAVITA S. NEVATIA 166250 17.73% 5000 50% 3. KAPIL S. NEVATIA 122000 13.02% 4. NEERAJ S. NEVATIA 75000 8.00% TOTAL 937500 100.00% 10000 100% THUS SHRI SHISHIR B. NEVATIA AND MRS. KAVITA S. NEV ATIA HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST (MORE THAN 20% SHAREHOLDINGS) IN THE ASSES SEE COMPANY AND ALSO HOLD MORE THAN 10% SHARES IN SIPL. 12. FROM THE ABOVE WE FIND THAT M/S. N.S.N. JEWELLE RS (P) LTD. IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER OF SUNJEVELS INDIA PVT. LTD. . THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) CAN BE ASSESSED O NLY IN THE HANDS OF A PERSON WHO IS SHAREHOLDER OF THE LENDER COMPANY AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF A PERSON OTHER THAN A SHAREHOLDER. 13. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS BHAUMIK COLOUR (P) LTD. (120 TTJ 865 MUM SB) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: DEEMED DIVIDEND CAN BE ASSESSED ONLY IN THE HANDS OF A PERSON WHO IS A SHAREHOLDER OF THE LENDER COMPANY AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE BORROWING CONCERN IN WHICH SUCH A SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER OR PARTNER HAVING SUBSTANTI AL INTEREST. ITA NO. 5021/MUM/2009 8 14. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE LOAN WAS GIVEN BY A COM PANY NOT TO ITS SHAREHOLDER HOLDING MORE THAN 10% OF ITS EQUITY SHA RES, BUT TO A CONCERN IN WHICH SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER. THEREFORE R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH, WE HOLD THAT THE LOAN OF RS. 52,25,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM M/S. SUNJEWELS INDIA PVT. LTD, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HOLD ANY SHARES, CANNOT BE ASSESSED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) AND. ALLOW ASSESSEES APPEAL. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011 SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 25 TH MARCH, 2011 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR B BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI ITA NO. 5021/MUM/2009 9 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 21 . 0 3 .201 1 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 2 1 .0 3 .2011 ______ SR. PS/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. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR _________ ______ 10 . DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______