ITO, Rewari V. Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma, Rewari

ITA 5082/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 98130 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K BANSAL
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Rejection of books of accounts; Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5082 /DEL /201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 3 - 0 4 THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER VS. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA WARD 2 PROP. M/S SHARMA STEEL AND P IPES REWARI SOHNA ROAD, DHARUHERA, REWARI PAN : ACBPS 4043 G [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] DA TE OF HEARING : 1 2 . 1 0 . 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 . 12 .2015 APPELLANT BY : SH RI K.K. JAISWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. BANSAL, CA ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , ROHTAK DATED 24 . 07 .201 2 PASSED IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 62 5 / RWR/ 201 1 - 1 2 FOR AY 200 9 - 1 0 . 2. THE GROUND NO. 5 OF THE REVENUE IS OF GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE [[AR] SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS GROUND NO. 4. 2 ITA NO. 5082 /DEL/201 2 HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. REMAINING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS A ND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,46,672/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF PARTIES AND IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS TH E ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH SUSTAINABLE DOCUMENT, EVIDENCE/ RECONCILIATION STATEMENTS IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,49,350/ - OUT OF RS. 4,01,993/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HEADS AS ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY HIM THE P & L ACCOUNT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND REASONING DISCUSSED IN DETAIL BY THE AO IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. ON THE FACTS AND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.45,48,417/ - MADE BY THE AO IN ESTIMATING THE GP BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BIL LS IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT AND TRADING ACCOUNT AND RECONCILE 3 ITA NO. 5082 /DEL/201 2 THE DIFFERENCES FOUND IN THE BALANCES OF PARTIES ACCOUNTS AND ASSESSEE S ACCOUNTS. GROUND NO. 1 3. APROPOS GROUND NO. 1, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR] SUPPORTED THE STAND AND ACTION OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SUNDRY DEBTORS COULD NOT BE FOUND TENABLE HENCE THE AO RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION IN THIS REGARD. THE LD DR ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION WITHOUT ANY BASIS, HENCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE SET ASIDE BY RESTORING THAT OF THE AO. 4. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, THE LD AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK PAGE 220 I.E. REMAND REPORT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGED AMOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS FULLY EXPLAINED AN D THE AO ACCEPTED THE SAME. HENCE THE REVENUE HAS NO CASE ON THIS ISSUE. THE LD AR ALSO CONTENDED THAT AS PER ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK PAGES 96, 99 AND 103 IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY M/S ADITYA INDUSTRIES IN ITS BOOKS WHEREIN PAYMENT MA DE BY SHARMA SALES WAS WRONGLY CREDITED TO THE ASSESSEE S ACCOUNTS WHICH WAS RECTIFIED ON 31.3.2012 BY THE ASSESSEE BY DEBITING THE ACCOUNT OF M/S ADITYA INDUSTRIES AND CREDITING THE ACCOUNT OF M/S SHARMA SALES. THE AO WRONGLY NOTED THAT THE MISTAKE WAS C ORRECTED IN THE BOOKS OF M/S 4 ITA NO. 5082 /DEL/201 2 ADITYA INSTEAD OF RECTIFYING THE SAME IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER. 5. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE RIVAL CONTENTIONS FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WE OBSERVED THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: 4.1 W ITH REGARD TO THE OTHER DEBTORS (SR. NO. 3,4 & 5 OF TABLE GIVEN IN PARA 2.1 , THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT STATED THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE REASONS AS TO WHY DEBIT/CREDIT NOTES WERE NOT ISSUED BY THE PARTIES AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AND ALSO AS TO WHY THE ACCOUNTS WERE NOT RECONC ILED WITH THE PARTIES AND RECTIF ICATORY MEASURES HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN IN THE FOLLOWING I YEAR BY MAKING ADJUSTMENTS IN RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THESE PARTIES PASSED THE BILLS OF THE APPELLANT BY MAKING VARIOUS DEDUCTIONS WHICH WERE NOT AGREED TO BY THE APPELLANT AN D ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANT IS SHOWING HIGHER RECOVERABLES. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SUNDRY DEBTORS DOES NOT REPRESENT INCOME RATHER IT IS AN EXPENDITURE. IN ANY CASE, THE ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECONCILED WITH DUE EXPLANATION I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR. AS NOTED EARLIER, EXCESS DEBIT BALANCES IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE DO NOT REPRESENT SUPPRESSION OF INCOME IN ANY MANNER. IN ANY CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED RECONCILIATION OF ACCOUNTS WITH DUE EXPLANATION. THE ADDITION 5 ITA NO. 5082 /DEL/201 2 MADE BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD OF RS 50,794/ - , RS 1,99,242/ - AND RS 37,054/ - IN RESPECT OF SR NO 3 , 4 & 5 OF TABLE GIVEN IN PARA 2.1 RESPECTIVELY ARE DELETED. 4.2 WITH REGARD TO THE EXCESS CREDIT BALANCE OF RS 2.00 LACS IN RESPECT OF M/S ADITYA INDUSTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT PAYMENT OF RS 2.00 LACS WAS MADE BY M/S SHARMA SALES TO M/S ADITYA INDUSTRIES ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPTY OF MATERIAL AND M/S ADITYA INDUSTRIE S HAS WRONGLY CREDITED ASSESSEE S A/C BY RS 2.00 LACS INSTEAD OF M/S SHARMA SALES. THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY M/S ADITYA INDUSTRIES HAS SINCE BEEN CORRECTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY DEBITING THE A/C OF M/S ADITYA INDUSTRIES AND CREDITING THE ACCOUNT OF M/S SHARMA SALES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT M/S SHARMA SALES IS THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SH. LALIT SHARMA, SON OF THE APPELLANT AND THE MISTAKE HAS ARISEN DUE TO CONFUSION IN THIS REGARD. M/S SHARMA SALES HAS REMINDED M/S ADITYA INDUSTRIES FOR THE MISTAKE COMMITTED AND WHEN IT WAS NOT RECTIFIED, THE APPELLANT AND M/S SHARMA SALES PASSED NEC ESSARY ENTRIES IN FY 2011 - 12. SINCE THE DIFFERENCE OF RS 2.00 LACS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED WITH DUE RECONCILIATION, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD OF RS 2.00 LACS IS DELETED. 4.3 AS REGARDS THE DIFFERENCE OF RS 49,510/ - IN RESPECT OF M/S RAHUL PIP ES (CREDITOR), THE AO HAS NOT COMMENTED ON THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS DUE TO THE 6 ITA NO. 5082 /DEL/201 2 DIFFERENCE IN THE OPENING BALANCE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, ADDITION M ADE IN THIS REGARD IS DELETED. TO SUM UP, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 31,70,133/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE A/C OF SUNDRY DEBTORS AND CREDITORS N IS DELETED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 6. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE LD DR SUBMITTED A CHART, WHICH WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, AND INFORMED THAT T HE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE CASE OF AKASNA INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD WAS OF RS. 1,64,243/ - WHEREAS THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BY MISTAKE NOTED THE SAME AS RS. 1,99,242/ - HENCE THERE WAS A OVER CALCULATION OF RS. 35,000/ - AND THUS ACTUAL RECONCILABLE DIFFERENCE WAS OF RS. 5,11,672/ - . THE LD DR PLACED NO OBJECTION TO THIS CALCULATION MISTAKE. 7. FURTHER, WE O BSERVE THAT ABOVE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION AT SERIAL NOS. 3,4 & 5 WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY HOLDING THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS DOES NOT REPRESENT INCOME, RATHER IT IS AN EXPENDITURE AND ACCOUNT OF THESE PARTIES HAVE BEEN RECONCILED WITH TH E EXPLANATION. WE ARE ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE EXCESS CREDIT BALANCE OF RS. 2 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF M/S ADITYA INDUSTRIES WHICH WAS ALSO RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE BY DEBITING M/S ADITYA INDUSTRIES AND CREDIT ING M/S SHARMA 7 ITA NO. 5082 /DEL/201 2 SALES THUS DIFFERENCE OF RS. 2 LAKHS WAS ALSO FOUND T O BE DULY EXPLAINED WITH REGARD TO DIFFERENCE OF RS. 49510/ - THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ADVERSE COMMENT ON THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE SAME WAS ALSO RIGHTLY DELETED. WE ARE U NABLE TO SEE ANY VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. HENCE WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE BEING DEVOID OF MERITS IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 2 8. APROPOS GROUND NO. 2 SUPPORTED THE ACTION OF THE A O AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PART ADDITION OF RS. 3,49,350/ - MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HEADS AS ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. THE LD. AR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER. 9. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) GRANTED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: 5. THE AD - HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS 4, 01,993/ - BEING 20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES DEBITED IN P&L A/C WAS CONTESTED IN 8 ITA NO. 5082 /DEL/201 2 GROUND NO. 5 OF APPEAL. BEFORE ME, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT INCURRED A TOTAL SUM OF RS 20,09,969/ - TOWARDS EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HEADS AND THE MAJOR EXPENSES INCLUDE S ALARIES OF RS 12,44,400/ - , BONUS OF RS 1,03,700/ - , DEPRECIATION OF RS 67,378/ - , INTEREST PAID OF RS 68,079/ - ETC. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF SALARIES GIVEN IN THE NAME OF EACH EMPLOYEE, PAYMENT OF BONUS ETC. WERE F URNISHED. FURTHER, COPIES OF BILLS OF STAFF WELFARE, ADVERTISEMENT ETC. WERE ALSO PRODUCED. THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING AD - HOC DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF ALL THE EXPENSES IS ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS WHEN ALL THE BILLS/VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFO RE HIM . 5. 1 HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND THE SU BMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR. THE AO NOTE D I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE A PPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE B ILLS IN RESPECT OF TRAVELLING, STAFF WELFARE ETC. AMOUNTING TO RS 2,63,215/ - . INSTEAD OF MAKING DISA LLOWANCE, IF ANY, IN THIS REGARD, THE AO WENT ON TO MAKE AD - HOC DISALLOW AN C E OF 20% OF THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER VARIOUS HEADS OF RS 20,09,969/ - FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITUR E IN RESPECT OF SALARIES, BONUS AND DEPRECIATION IS UNTENABLE WHEN THE NECESSARY 7 EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO DISALLOW THE 20% OF THE EXPENSES OF RS 2,63,215/ - FOR WHICH THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE BILLS/VOUCHERS AND THE GR OUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9 ITA NO. 5082 /DEL/201 2 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS QUITE CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF SALARIES, BONUS, DEPRECIATION BECAUSE NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THESE EXPENSES WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ALSO QUITE JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF RS. 2,63,215/ - FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE BILLS/VOUCHERS. WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY INFIRMITY OR PERVERSITY OR ANY OTHER VALID REASON TO I NTERFERE WITH THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER AND THUS WE UPHOLD THE SAME ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 3 11. APROPOS GROUND NO. 3, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONTENDED THAT THE AO RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION ESTIMATING THE GP WHICH WAS LOWER IN COMPARISON TO EARLIER YEARS. THE LD. AR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER AND CONTENDED THAT THE AO WRONGLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON FLIMSY AND WHIMSI CAL GROUND IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. HENCE THE ASSESSEE BY ESTIMATE THE GP RATE WAS CORRECTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 10 ITA NO. 5082 /DEL/201 2 12. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, FIRSTLY FROM THE BARE READING O F THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REJECTING THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS AND MAKING AD HOC PEAK ADDITION OF RS 4,48,417/ - WAS CONTESTED IN GROUND NO. 6 OF APPEAL. BEFORE ME, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH I HAVE BEEN DULY AUDITED WITHOUT POINTING ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT/DISCREPANCY. MERE NON PRODUCTION OF SOME CASH VOUCHERS DOES NOT MAKE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS INCOMPLETE AND UNRELIABLE. FURTHER, THE AUDITOR HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE REMARKS IN THIS REGARD . 6.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS C IDEM THAT THE AO RESORTED TO REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT THE GP & NP DECLARED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE LOWER THAN PREVIOUS YEARS. THE AO HAS NOT POINTED ANY SPECIFIC DISCREPANCY /DEFICIENCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. I T IS INTRIGUING TO NOTE THAT THE AO HAS RELIED UPON THE SAME BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO MAKE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS AND CREDITORS WHEREAS HE RESORTED TO REJECTION OF THE BOOKS IN VIEW OF LOW GP/NP, WHICH IS ILLEGAL. THE REASONS SHOWN BY THE AO FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE FLIMSY AND WHIMSICAL. THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ESTIMATING THE GP BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS HELD 11 ITA NO. 5082 /DEL/201 2 TO BE UNTENABLE AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS 4,48,417/ - IS DELETED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 13 . THEREFORE, FROM THE ABOVE NOTED OPERATIVE PART OF THE LD. CIT(A) S ORDER, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE SOME COST VOUCHERS WHEREAS NO DEFECT OR ADVERSE REMARK WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AUDITOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY DEMOLISHED THE ACTION OF THE AO REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT IN THIS SITUATION, ACTION OF THE AO IN ESTIMATING THE G.P. RATE BY WRONGLY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUE ALSO FAILS. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 9 . 1 2 .2015 . S D / - S D / - ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) (C.M. GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 0 9 T H DECEMBER, 2015 VL/ 12 ITA NO. 5082 /DEL/201 2 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI 13 ITA NO. 5082 /DEL/201 2 SI. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1 . DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 07.12.2015 2. D R AFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 0 9 - 12 - 2015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. D ATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER