Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1 (1), Panaji., Panaji V. M/s Dempo Industries Pvt. Ltd., Panaji

ITA 58/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1344 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SIDDAPP A JI R N
• Assessee Lawyers: SHARMILA PRABHU
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure
• Section: 37; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 58 & 59 /PNJ/201 5 (ASST. YEAR S : 200 6 - 0 7 & 2011 - 12 ) DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI. VS. M/S. DEMPO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DEMPO HOUSE, CAMPAL, PANAJI. PAN NO. AAACU 1705 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MS. SHARMILA PRABHU C A DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SIDDAPP A JI R.N. - D R DATE OF HEARING : 0 7 / 1 0/2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 / 1 0 /201 5 . O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TH E S E ARE THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , PANAJI - 1 , BOTH DATED 17 / 11 /201 4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 & 2011 - 12 . ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO 15,75,358/ - CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXPENSES FOR EMPLOYEE COST, ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND FINANCE CHARGES OF A BE VE RAGE UNIT. 2 ITA NOS. 58 & 59 /PNJ/201 5 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED AN AMOUNT OF 15,75,358/ - ( EXCLUDING DEPRECIATION ) ON THE BEVERAGE BUSINESS WHICH WAS NOT IN OPERATION SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 , DEPRECIATION WAS DISALLOWED ON BEVERAGE UNIT ON THE GROUND TH A T IT HAS NOT CARRIED OUT THE BUSINESS OPERATION SINCE 2002 - 03 AND THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE SAME VIDE ORDER DATED 19/ 07/2007 IN I.T.A.NO. 99/PNJ/2007 . THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE FOR BEVERAGE UNIT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE . 4 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS A FACT THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE BEVERAGES UNIT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS NOT UNDER OPERATION. THE DEPRECIATION WAS DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. REGARDING THE CLAIM OF OTHER EXPENSES, THEY ARE IN THE NATURE OF DIRECTORS SALARY/EMPLOYEE COST, ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER EXPENSES AND FINANCE CHARGES, WHICH WERE REQUIRED FOR UPKEEP OF THE UNIT. THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE SAME TREATING THEM AS NON - BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AS THERE WAS NO BUSINESS IN THE BEVERAGE UNIT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE APPELLANT STATED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL EMPLOYEE COST, RS.2,45,467/ - PERTAINED TO MANAGERIAL REMUNERATION OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND NOT THE BEVERAGES DIVISION ALONE AND THEREFORE THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED. REGARDING THE CLAIM OF OTHER EXPENSES, THE APPELLANT ARGUED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S.37(1), ANY EXPENDITUR E WHICH IS NOT CAPITAL OR PERSONAL IN NATURE AND EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, HAS TO BE ALLOWED. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS REVENUE IN NATURE AND THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED THE SAME ONLY BECAUSE THE PLANT WAS N OT OPERATIVE. TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM, THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF VAZIR GLASS WORKS VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 494/M U M/2005. IN THIS CASE THE HONBLE MUMBAI ITAT HELD THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MAINTAINING ITS UNIT I S ALLOWABLE, EVEN THOUGH NO MANUFACTURING WAS CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR. THE APPELLANT IN ITS SUBMISSION HAS DISTINGUISHED THE FACTS AS BEING DIFFERENT FROM THE CASE OF M/S. J. K. TRADERS VS. CIT. THE CONTENT OF ASSESSEES SUBMISSION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 3 ITA NOS. 58 & 59 /PNJ/201 5 ON THE OUTSET THE APPELLANT WISHES TO CLARIFY THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF J. K. TRADERS VS. CIT. THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN HIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 263. IN THE ABOVE MEN TIONED LETTER, THE APPELLANT HAS DISTINGUISHED THE SAID CASE AS THE FACTS DIFFER. THE APPELLANT REITERATES THAT IN THE ABOVE EASE, THE COMPANY WAS NOT ABLE TO COMMENCE BUSINESS FOR NINE YEARS. HOWEVER, THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE DIFFER. THE APPELLA NT HAD SUSPENDED OPERATIONS TEMPORARILY BECAUSE THERE WAS A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE PRINCIPAL. IN CASE THE DISPUTE WOULD HAVE BEEN SORTED OUT, THEN THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE TO RECOMMENCE OPERATIONS IMMEDIATELY. HENCE IT WAS PRUDENT ON THE PAR T OF THE APPELLANT TO MAINTAIN THE FACTORY IN GOOD WORKING CONDITION AND HENCE THE APPELLANT HAS INCURRED THE SAID EXPENDITURE. W E ARE ENCLOSING HEREWITH DETAILS OF THESE EXPENSES IN ANNEXURE - 1, WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE SAID EXPENSES WERE NECESSARY FOR THE UPKEEP OF THE PLANT. THE APPELLANT RELIES ON THE DECISION OF VAZIR GLASS WORKS LTD. IN ITA/494/MUM/2005 WHICH IS DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE. WHEN THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED THE APPELLANT WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE BUSINESS WOULD HAVE TO BE SHUT DOWN. THERE WAS A DISPUTE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED EITHER WAY. HENCE IN CASE IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE APPELLANT RECOMMENCE THE OPERATIONS, THEN MAINTAINING THE PLANT IN GOOD WORKING CONDITION WAS MANDATORY AND HENCE THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED T O SAFE GUARD THE PLANT. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT OUT OF THE DISALLOWED AMOUNT OF RS.3 , 45,467/ - HAS BEEN PAID AS REMUNERATION TO THE MANAGING D IRECTOR OF THE COMPANY AND OF THE DIVISION AS SUCH . ALSO AN AMOUNT OF RS.50,897/ - HAS BEEN INCURRED TOWARDS VEHICLE RUNNING EXPENSES OF THE MD. KINDLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND LET T H E APPELLANT KNOW ABOUT IN CASE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. I HAVE TRIED TO UNDERSTAND THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IN THE LIGHT OF BOTH THE DECISIONS, I.E. M/S . VAZIR GLASS WORKS AND M/S. J. K.TRADERS, ONE BEING IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND THE OTHER, AGAINST IT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAD TO SUSPEND ITS MANUFACT URING BECAUSE OF A DISPUTE AND THE APPELLANT HAD NO OPTION BUT TO MAINTAIN ITS MANUFACTURING FACILITIES AS IN ABSENCE OF 4 ITA NOS. 58 & 59 /PNJ/201 5 MAINTENANCE, THE PLANT ITSELF WOULD RUST AND RE - STARTING THE SAME WILL BECOME DIFFICULT AND COSTLIER. THE DEPRECIATION HAS ALREADY BEEN DISALLOWED AND ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLANT. SINCE, THE UPKEEP OF THE FACTORY WAS ESSENTIAL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN MY OPINION, THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT ARE ALLOWABLE AND THE A.O. IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INTEGRATED TECHNOLOG IES LTD. IN I.T.A.NO. 530/2011 ORDER DATED 16/12/2011, WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT PLANT AND MACHINERY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ACTUALLY PUT TO USE IN THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AND THAT EVEN IF THE PLANT AND MA CHINERY OR OTHER ASSET IS KEPT READY FOR USE IN THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION. THE ONLY CONDITION IS THAT THE BUSINESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CLOSED DOWN ONCE FOR ALL AND THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD DEMONSTRATE THAT TH E HOPES OF THE BUSINESS BEING REVIVED ARE ALIVE AND REAL. THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE O R MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK EFFORTS TO KEEP THE BUSINESS ALIVE IN THE HOPE OF REVIVING THE SAME. MAINTAINING THE OFFICE AND ESTABLISHMENT, COMPLYING WITH THE STATUTORY FORMALITIES, NOT DISPOSING OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY, INCURRING EXPENSES ON THE REPAIR OF PLANT AND MACHINERY ETC. ARE SOME OF THE INDICATIONS OF NURTURING THE HOPES OF REVIVING THE BUSINESS. 6 . THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS DISPUTE WITH PEPSI LTD. FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING BOTTL ING OF AERATED SOFT DRINKS AND THEREFORE, OPERATION S OF THE UNIT WERE TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS TRYING TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE TO RECOMMENCE THE BUSINESS . H ENCE, EXPENDITURE FOR MAINTAINING THE PLANT AND MACHINERY AND STAFF A N D INCURRING STATUTORY EXPENDITURE WAS ESSENTIAL . THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS 5 ITA NOS. 58 & 59 /PNJ/201 5 REVENUE IN NATURE AND RIGH T LY ALLOWED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 7 . WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE BUSINESS OF BEVERAGE UNIT WAS TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS MAKING EFFORTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE WITH PEPSI LTD. FOR WHOM THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING B O T T L I N G WORK AND HAD TO INCUR EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION FOR MAINTAINING THE UNIT IN OPERATIONAL CONDITION. I T I S A L S O N O T I N D I S P U T E T H A T T H E EXPENDITURE I N Q U E S T I O N I S G E N U I N E BUSINESS EXPENDITURE O F T H E ASSESSEE . T H E HONBLE D E L H I HIGH COURT I N T H E C A S E O F CIT VS. A N I T A J A I N ( 2 0 0 9 ) 1 8 2 T A X M A N N 1 7 3 ( D E L . ) A N D T H E HONBLE M A D R A S HIGH COURT I N T H E C A S E O F L . V E . V A I R A V A N C H E T T I A R VS. CIT ( 1 9 6 9 ) 7 2 ITR 1 1 4 ( M A D R A S ) H A V E H E L D T H A T I N C A S E O F T E M P O R A R Y S U S P E N S I O N O F BUSINESS , T H E R E I S N O T H I N G T O S H O W T H A T T H E BUSINESS H A S B E E N A B A N D O N E D P E R M A N E N T L Y A N D EXPENDITURE I N C U R R E D T O K E E P T H E BUSINESS A L I V E I N T H E H O P E O F R E V I V I N G T H E S A M E I S BUSINESS EXPENDITURE A L L O W A B L E UNDER SEC. 3 7 ( 1 ) O F T H E ACT . FURTHER, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS ME RELY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT COULD NOT POIN T OUT ANY SPECIFIC MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 8 . THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF 1,36,43,978/ - ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO NEWSPAPER VENDORS WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TDS UNDER SEC. 40(A)(IA) AND DELETING THE ADDITION OF 2,76,00,979/ - BEING PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO ADVERTISING AGENTS WITHOUT DEDUCTING TDS UNDER SEC. 40(A)(IA). 6 ITA NOS. 58 & 59 /PNJ/201 5 9. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE ASSESSEE MADE COMMISSION PAYMENT TO NEWSPAPER VENDORS OF 1,36,43,978/ - AND ADVERTISING AGENTS OF 2,76,00,979/ - , AGGREGATING TO 4,12,44 , 95 7 / - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TDS FROM THE ABOVE PAYMENTS AND THEREFORE, BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT , HE DISALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR THE SAME AND ADDED IT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 10 . ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE AND WHILE DOING SO , HE HELD THAT TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTABLE AT SOURCE ON THE AMOUNT OF TRADE DISCOUNT ALLOWED TO THE ADVERTISING AGENCY AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF 2,76,00,979/ - . FURTHER, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 40(A)(IA) ON THE GROUND TH A T PAYMENT MADE TO VENDORS IS COMMISSION ON WHICH TDS PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE SINCE THE VENDORS HAVE TO RETURN UNSOLD COPIES OF NEWSPAPERS. THEREFORE, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEWSPAPERS AND THE VENDORS IS THAT OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENTS AND THEREFORE, THE PAYMENTS IS IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION. HE HELD THAT IN SOME CASES VENDORS MAY HAVE TO COLLECT UNSOLD PAPERS AND RETURN IT TO THE PRINCIPAL . THIS ACT ALONE CANNOT CHANGE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL AND VENDOR. HE HELD THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SAMAJ (2001) 77 ITD 358 (CUTTACK) APPLIES WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SALE OF NEWSPAPERS AT DI SCOUNTED PRICE TO THE NEWSPAPER VENDORS AMOUNTS TO DISCOUNT AND NOT COMMISSION. 11 . THE REVENUE IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL HAS STATED THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE WHEN THE CONTRACT IS IN THE NATURE OF PRINCIPAL TO AGENT BASIS AND ASSESSEE WOULD LIABLE TO MAKE TDS AS DECIDED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. B H A R A T I C E L L U L A R LTD. 1 0 5 I T D 1 2 9 ( K O L K A T A . ) . 7 ITA NOS. 58 & 59 /PNJ/201 5 12 . THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. VS. DCIT (201 5) 372 ITR 33 ( K A R . ) HELD AS UNDER: - (I) SIM CARDS HAD NO INTRINSIC SALE VALUE AND WERE SUPPLIED TO CUSTOMERS FOR PROVIDING MOBILE SERVICES TO THEM. THERE WAS NO RELATIONSHIP OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENCY. ON THE CONTRARY, IT WAS EXPRESS LY STATED THAT THE RELATIONSHIP WAS THAT OF PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL. SECONDLY, THE DISTRIBUTOR OR CHANNEL PARTNER HAD TO PAY CONSIDERATION FOR THE PRODUCT SUPPLIED AND IT WAS TREATED AS SALE CONSIDERATION. THERE WAS A CLAUSE, WHICH SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT AF TER SUCH SALE OF PRODUCTS, THE DISTRIBUTOR OR CHANNEL PARTNER COULD NOT RETURN THE GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE FOR WHATEVER REASON. WHAT WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS DISTRIBUTOR OR CHANNEL PARTNER WAS A TRADE DISCOUNT. IT WAS NOT COMMISSION. (II) THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD PRE - PAID CARDS AND VOUCHERS TO THE DISTRIBUTORS. AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSEE SELLING THESE PRE - PAID CARDS FOR A CONSIDERATION TO THE DISTRIBUTOR, THE DISTRIBUTOR DID NOT EARN ANY INCOME. IN FACT, RATHER THAN EARNING INCOME, THE DISTRIBUTORS I NCURRED EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURCHASE OF PRE - PAID CARDS. ONLY AFTER THE RESALE OF THOSE PRE - PAID CARDS, WOULD THE DISTRIBUTORS DERIVE INCOME. AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSEE SELLING THESE PRE - PAID CARDS, IT WAS NOT IN POSSESSION OF ANY INCOME BELONGING TO THE DISTRIBUTOR. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF ANY INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING TO THE DISTRIBUTOR AT THE POINT OF TIME OF SALE OF PRE - PAID CARDS BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DISTRIBUTOR DID NOT ARISE. SEC. 194H WAS NOT APPLICABLE. 13 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 1,36,43,978/ - ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO THE NEWSPAPER VENDORS AND 2,76,00,979/ - TOWARDS P AYMENTS OF COMMISSION TO ADVERTISING AGENTS UNDER SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 8 ITA NOS. 58 & 59 /PNJ/201 5 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S OF THE R E V E NUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON WEDNESDAY , THE 0 7 TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 201 5 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (GEORGE MATHAN) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 0 7 TH OCTOBER , 201 5 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI 9 ITA NOS. 58 & 59 /PNJ/201 5 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 0 7 . 1 0.2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 08 . 1 0 .2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 08 / 1 0 /2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 08 / 1 0/2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 08 / 1 0 /2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07 / 1 0/2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 08 / 1 0 /2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER