ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. R.L. Traders, Delhi

ITA 6227/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97828 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 26-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANJULA JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: K R MANJAM
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Business income; Block assessment; Onus to prove

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.6227/DEL/13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCO UNTANT MEMBER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.- 6227/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEA R-2009-10) ITO WARD-29(1), ROOM NO. 103, DRUM SHAPE BUILDING, I. P. ESTATE NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS R.L. TRADERS 2046, KATRA TABACCO, KHARI BAOLI DELHI AAAFR5508C (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SMT. ANJULA JAIN, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SH. K. R. MANJAM, ADV ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST ORDER DATED 14/8/2013 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-IV, NEW DELHI FOR THE A.Y 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 1. WHETHER LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.27,76,521/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY AP PLYING THE GP RATE OF 10% AS AGAINST 6.65% DECLARING BY THE ASSES SEE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHETHER THE LD. C IT(A) IS CORRECT RELYING UPON HIS PREDECESSORS DECISION IN ITA NO. 295/2007-08 BLOCK ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y 2000-01 TO 2006-07 WHEN TH E FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE YEAR WERE DIFFERENT FROM THIS YEAR. DATE OF HEARING 26.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04.10.2015 2 ITA NO.6227/DEL/13 3. WHETHER LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.10,59,721/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AC COUNT OF INTEREST, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED AMPLE OPPORT UNITY BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF LIABILITY. 4. WHETHER LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.8,00,900/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DEEPLY INVESTIGATED THE ISSUE AND FIND OUT THAT THERE WERE MANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN HING COMPOUND. HING C OMOUND IS PREPARED BY MIXING HINGS, GUM, OIL AND STARCH. THE MIXTURE DEPENDS ON THE NEEDS OF THE CLIENT. IF MORE HING IS MIXED, THE PRICE WILL BE M ORE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DEALS IN DRY FRUIT AND MAINTAINS QUANTITATIVE TALLY. THE AS SESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER PRODUCED STOCK RECORDS TO PROVE HIS CONTENTION THOUGH AS PER COLUMN NO. 28 B OF THE AUDIT REPORT THERE IS NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY MENTIONED THEREIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITS OR DER CLEARLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS NOT ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF HI NG WHICH IS AN ACCEPTED FACT BY THE ASSESSEE. IN TAX AUDIT REPORT THE QUAN TITATIVE DETAILS OF PRINCIPAL ITEM OF GOODS DEALT BY THE ASSESSEE WERE GIVEN AS U NDER:- ITEM OPENING STOCK CLOSING STOCK HEENG 47962.20 KG NIL GUM 2952.00 KG NIL 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE GP AT 10% O N TOTAL SALES OF RS.8,29,48,817/- AS THE SAME BASIS WAS TAKEN BY HIS PREDECESSOR AND CALCULATED RS.82,94,882/-. THUS, THE ADDITION OF R S.27,76,521/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HELD THAT INTEREST OF RS.10,59,721/- WAS SHOWN AS EXPENSES PAYABLE ON 31/ 3/2009. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS AS ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT THE LIST OF PARTY WISE INTEREST PAYABLE WAS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING 3 ITA NO.6227/DEL/13 OFFICER DISALLOWED INTEREST OF RS.10,59,721/-. AS R ELATES TO BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS.22,88,547/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKE D THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS OF SALE BILL ON WHICH BROKERAGE WAS PAID TO DIFFERE NT BROKERS. THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION FROM SOME BROKERS. AFTER DEALING THE DETAILS OF SALE BILLS ON WHICH THE COMMISSION WAS PAID THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN THOSE CONFIRMATIONS. THUS, RS.8,00,990/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE CIT(A) DELETED ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF APPLY ING G.P. RATE OF 10% AS AGAINST 6.65% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS M ADE ADDITION ON INTEREST PAYABLE TO THE OLD CREDITORS AND COMMISSION EXPENSE S. THE CIT(A) IN THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE OBSERVED THAT THE CIT(A)-II VIDE OR DER DATED 31.08.2010 FOR A.Y. 2000-01 TO 2006-07 HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT NO DEFECT WERE FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE TRADING RE SULTS BEING VOUCHED AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED. THE DEPARTMENT PREFE RRED APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE ITAT F BENCH DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 17.06.2011 CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETI NG THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT PARA 7 OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 7. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOWHERE POINTED OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WA S MAINTAINING QUANTITATIVE TALLIES. ITS BOOKS ARE DULY VOUCHED AN D AUDITED. IN SOME OF THE YEARS, IT HAS DISCLOSED BETTER G.P. THEN THE 15% ES TIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MERE FALL IN G.P. IN ONE OR TWO YEARS WOUL D NOT AUTHORIZE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE AN ADDITION. LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER FAILED TO MAKE OUT ANY CASE FOR A G.P. ADDITION. LEARNED CIT( APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE 4 ITA NO.6227/DEL/13 LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJE CTED IN ALL THE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,59,721/- ON ACCOU NT OF INTEREST, THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE SAME ON THE GROUND OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN CASE OF CIT V. SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS 236 ITR 518 AS WELL AS C IT V. G.P. INTERNATIONAL LTD. 325 ITR 25. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 8,00 ,990/- ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE EXPENSES, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE FURNISHED FULL DETAILS OF BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION ALONG WITH THE CONFIRMATIO N FROM THE PARTIES THEREFORE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SUSTAINING THE DIS ALLOWANCE AND DELETED THE SAID ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND THUS GP AT 10% ON TOTAL SALES OF RS.8,29,48,817/- WHICH WAS CALCULATED TO RS.82,9 4,882/- AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.27,76,521/- WAS RIGHTLY MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST PAYABLE HAS SHOWN EXPENSES BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS NOT CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSEE THOUGH THE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, THE INTEREST WAS PROPERLY DISALLOWED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF C OMMISSIONER RECEIVED BY BROKERS DID NOT BEAR THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID AND IT WAS ONLY THE VOUCHERS WHICH WAS PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION OF AMO UNT. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE TAKING A LENIENT VIEW 35% OF COMMISSI ON EXPENSES DISALLOWED. THEREFORE, THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL BE ALLO WED. 7. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN HING COMPOUND WHICH DOES NOT AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURING BUT IT IS THE SIM PLE MIXTURE METHOD AND DEPENDS UPON THE NEED OF CLIENT. THOUGH THE A.O HA S MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED G.P RATE OF 10%, THE SAME IS WRONGLY MENTIONED BY THE 5 ITA NO.6227/DEL/13 ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER AR. THE AR FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE PROFIT RATIO DEPENDS ON DRAWN OF THE MARKET AVAILABILITY OF GOOD S, CLIENT AGE ETC. IT IS ON THIS ACCOUNT THE GP RATE CANNOT BE THE SAME. COMPA RATIVE CHART WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, SINCE QUANTITATIVE TALLY WAS MAINTAINED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY DISALLOWED RS. 27,76 ,521/- BY APPLYING G.P RATE OF 10% AS AGAINST 6.65% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN ITS ORDER HAS RIGHTLY MENTIONED IN P ARA 1 THAT THE A.O HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY QUANTITATIVE DEFECTS IN THE ITEM SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF T HE ASSESSEE AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE A.Y 2006-07 ARE THAT WHEN THE ADDI TION ON ACCOUNT OF GP RATE ADOPTED AT 15%, THE SAME WAS DELETED BOTH BY LD. CI T(A) AND ITAT. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F G.P DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR DOES NOT SURVIVE. 8. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS .10,59,721/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED SINCE THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT WRITTEN OFF THIS AMOUNT IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS WELL AS THERE IS NO CESSATION OF LIABILITY. THE AR RELIED UPON THE CASE LAWS IN RESPECT OF HON BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. G.P INTERNATIONAL LTD 325 ITR 25 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE LIABILITY IS STILL SHOWN OUTSTA NDING ADDITION U/S 41(1) CANNOT BE MADE. THE AR ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF TULIP HOTEL PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 132 TTJ 633 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE LIABILITY OF EARLIER YEARS IS SHOWN OUTST ANDING IN THE BALANCE-SHEET IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE LIABILITY HAS CEASED TO EXI ST. THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE APEX COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUGHAU LI SUGAR WORKS 236 TTR 518. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S TAKING LOAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS BUSINESS AND INTEREST WAS PAYABLE TH EREON. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED INTEREST ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND TDS WAS ALSO DEDUCTED AND LOSS RAISED IN EVERY YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASING TURNOVER MORE L OSS WERE TAKEN IN THE CURRENT YEAR AND FOR SOME OF THE PARTIES INTEREST W AS NOT PAID. THIS INTEREST 6 ITA NO.6227/DEL/13 PAYABLE WAS IN RESPECT OF THOSE PARTIES. THESE PAR TIES WERE NOT PAID THE INTEREST LATER ON, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CO-OPERATE IN FILING CONFIRMATION IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSEES CLAIM. IT IS ON THIS ACCOUN T THAT INTEREST WAS NOT PAID ON THIS ACCOUNT LITIGATIONS STARTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND TRIBUNAL AND WERE FINALIZED ONLY IN THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2012. ON ABOVE ACCOUNT THE INTEREST IS WAS DUE TO VARIOUS PARTIES AND THE SAME WAS NOT PAI D, ABOUT WHICH A.O WAS INFORMED VIDE LETTER DATED 17/22 NOVEMBER 2011. OUT STANDING INTEREST WERE SHOWN AS INCOME IN THE YEAR ENDING 31/3/2012. SINCE THIS AMOUNT WAS ALREADY SHOWN AS INCOME IN YEAR ENDING 31/3/2012, T HERE WAS NO QUESTION OF MAKING ADDITION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH IS OF 2009-10. IT IS ONLY AFTER MARCH 2011 THE DECISION WAS TAKEN TO SHO W THIS AS INCOME AND NOT TO PAY THE AMOUNT TO THE PERSONS TO WHOM IT IS DUE BECAUSE OF THEIR NON-CO- OPERATION. 9. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS RELATES TO BROK ERAGE EXPENSES, THOUGH THE CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, YET C ERTAIN AMOUNTS WERE NOT MENTIONED ON THE BILLS AS RELATED TO CONFIRMATION O F THE PARTIES WHICH AMOUNTS TO APPROXIMATELY 40% TILL 28 % COMMISSIONS PAID TO THE PARTIES. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY ADDED THE INCOME OF R S.8,00,919/-. IN FACT ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY TOOK 5 BILLS, OF WHICH COMMI SSION COMES TO RS.34,000/-. THUS, THE DIFFERENCE WAS BECAUSE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHO DID NOT ACCOUNTED FOR OTHER BILLS IN REGARD TO CONFIRMATION OF SHRI ANURAG AS WELL AS SHRI MANISH MAHESHWAR. THE AR ALSO PRODUCED THE HO NBLE HIGH COURTS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010-2011 WHEREIN I N PARA 9 IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TO EXAMINE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO WHETHER THE QUANTITATIVE TALLY WAS U NDERTAKEN OF THE RAW MATERIAL USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BUSINESS ACTIV ITIES AND IF SO THE INFERENCE IS TO BE DRAWN FROM IT AND THE OTHER AVAILABLE MATE RIAL. IN THIS RESPECT THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE HAS ALREADY TAKEN IN TO ACCOUNT OF THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 7 ITA NO.6227/DEL/13 10. WE HAVE PERUSED ALL THE RECORDS AND HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. AS RELATES TO FIRST ISSUE OF G.P RATE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE SELLING PRICE OF THE HING WAS LESSER THAN PURCHASE PRICE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ACTIVITY CARRIED OFF BY THE A SSESSEE IS NOT MANUFACTURING. THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS SELLING THE HING AF TER MIXING WITH STARCH, OIL, GUM AND WATER AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE AVERAGE PRIC E OF THE SALE WAS LESSER BECAUSE OF THE MORE QUANTITY OF MIXED HING. AS A RE SULT OF MIXTURE OF CHEAP ARTICLE LIKE STARCH, OIL, GUM AND WATER. THERE WAS PROFIT IN HING ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY ADOPTED G.P RAT E AT 6.65%. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN OUT ANY QUANTITATIVE DEFECTS IN THE ITEM SOLD BY THE ASSESS EE AND ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE G.P RATE WAS ALSO ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSEES EARLIER CASES FOR A.Y 200 0-01 TO 2006-07. THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010-2011 WHEREIN IN PARA 9 IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS T O EXAMINE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO WHETHER THE QUANTITATIV E TALLY WAS UNDERTAKEN OF THE RAW MATERIAL USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BUSINESS A CTIVITIES AND IF SO THE INFERENCE IS TO BE DRAWN FROM IT AND THE OTHER AVAI LABLE MATERIAL. IN THIS RESPECT THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, HAS ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT OF THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD AND ALLOWED THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDI TION. WE HOLD THAT THE G.P RATE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 6.65% HAS BEEN RIGH TLY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE CIT(A) AS PER THE CHART GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. AS RELATES TO INTEREST IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT WRITTEN OFF THIS AMOUNT IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UP TILL 2012 AND THERE WAS NO CESSATION OF LIABILITY. THE RELIANCE PLACED ON PUNJAB AND HARYA NA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. G.P INTERNATIONAL LTD. (SUPRA) HAS CORRECTLY SET OUT THE POSITION THAT WHERE THE LIABILITY STILL SHOWN OUTST ANDING AND ADDITION CANNOT BE 8 ITA NO.6227/DEL/13 MADE. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHO WN IT IN THE YEAR ENDING ON 31/3/2012. THEREFORE, THIS ADDITION WAS ALSO RIGHT LY REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 12. AS RELATES TO BROKERAGE EXPENSES, THE A.O IN HI S REMAND REPORT HAS NOT REBUTTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A .O HAS CALCULATED THE COMMISSION MERELY AS A PERCENTAGE ON SALES VALUE WH EREAS THE COMMISSION WAS ALSO PAYABLE ON THE QUANTITY OF SALES IN ADDITI ON TO THE VALUE OF SALES THE DETAILS WHICH WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CO NFIRMATION OF THE BROKERS HAS GIVEN THE COMPLETE DETAILS AS SEEN FROM THE REC ORDS. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION ON THIS AC COUNT. 13. IN RESULT, GROUND NO. 1, 2, 3 AND 4 ARE DISMISS ED. 14. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH OF OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (SU CHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 04/10/2015 R. NAHEED* 9 ITA NO.6227/DEL/13 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT R EGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 26.10.2015 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 27.10.2015 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .10..2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS .10.2015 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 04 .10.2015 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.