Income tax Officer Ward-1(2), V. Smt Neelima Shrivastava, RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 63/BIL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2253 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHITAL S VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: R B DOSHI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Benefit of exemption; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 54B; 54F; 54; 139

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO .63 /BLPR /2012 IN TH E INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: RAI PUR BENCH: RAI PUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO .63 /BLPR/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009 - 10 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(1), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, C IVIL LINES, RAIPUR VS SMT. NEELIMA SHRIVBASTAVA, HIG - 1/141, DEENDAYAL, DEENDAYAL UPADHAYA NAGAR, \ RAIPUR, PAN: AMJPS9322E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SMT. SHITAL S. VERMA, DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI R. B. DOSHI, AR DATE OF HEARING: 1 5 - 10 - 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 - 11 - 2015 O R D E R PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), RAIPUR DATED 28 - 03 - 2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE DECIDED AS FO LLOWS: - 2. GROUND NO.1: - WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.88,000/ - MADE BY THE A. O. ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF DEVELOPMENT OF LAND? 3 . FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRE SPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY FILED HIS RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.98,540/ - . IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE 2 ITA NO .63 /BLPR /2012 ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PLOT OF LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.39,00,00 0 ON 13 - 05 - 2008. IT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SAID LAND WAS BOUGHT ON 13 - 03 - 1989 FOR A SUM OF RS.96,000/ - PLUS STAMP DUTY OF RS.1,500/ - THE ASSESSEE HAD ADDED RS.86,000/ - AS COST OF DEVELOPMENT WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN AND TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT TOWARDS COST OF ACQUISITION. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL COST OF ACQUISITION WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS RS.99,100/ - . AFTER ACCOUNTING THE INDEX COST OF INFLATION, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS OFFERED AT RS.35,41,762/ - . IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER DETAILS TOWARDS COST OF DEVELOPMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.88,000/ - , THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED AND ACCORDINGLY THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS COMPUTED AT RS.38,59,894/ - . 4. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ALLO WED RELIEF IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - 5. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT : 5.1 THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT OF LAND RS.88000/ - WHICH CONTAINS EXPENSES ON FENCING OF THE LAND, COST OF BORING AND FILLING AND LEVELLING OF THE LAND AND LA BOUR CHARGES AND THIS EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1988 - 89 ITSELF DURING WHICH THE SAID LAND WAS PURCHASED AND REGISTERED. THIS FACT IS EVIDENT IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ITSELF WHICH IS SUBMITT ED ALONG WITH OTHER DETAILS. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LOOKING INTO THE SMALL VOLUME OF THE EXPENSES ION DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AND THE YEAR, IN WHICH IT IS INCURRED, SAME MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED. 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT O RDER AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT, THAT, THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND IN WAY BACK IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1988 - 89 AND VOLUME OF THE EXPENDITURE IS ALSO LESS AS WELL AS INCIDEN TAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND. HENCE, THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.88000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF DEVELOPMENT OF LAND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND HEREBY DELETED. 3 ITA NO .63 /BLPR /2012 5. HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES. THE ISSUE AS RAISED IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BY TH E REVENUE IS TRIFLE IN NATURE. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE LAND WHICH WAS PURCHASED IN THE YEAR 1989 COULD REQUIRE SOME FENCING AND RELATED EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO.2: - WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.19,55,575/ - MADE BY THE A. O. BY WITHDRAWING CLAIM O F EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.19,55,575/ - . THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS USED FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE. THE AO HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING OBJEC TIONS: - 6. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEED OF THE SAID PROPERTY SUGGESTS CLEARLY THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS NOT AGRICULTURAL AND RATHER IT IS RESIDENTIAL LAND ADMEASURING 16117.20 SFT. SITUATED IN WARD NO.65 OF BHOPAL CITY WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMI TS OF BHOPAL. IN THIS CONNECTION THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE PROOF OF USE OF LAND FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE VIDE ORDER SHEET DATED 07.10.2011. IN THIS CONNECTION, SHE FURNISHED AN AGREEMENT LETTER EXECUTED BETWEEN HER AND ONE MR. BHUJAL SINGH, S/O SHRI BADRI NARAYAN SINGH, R/O GORA GAON, BISANKHEDI, BHADBHADA ROAD, BHOPAL STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D GIVEN HER LAND TO OTHER PARTY ON LEASE FOR FOUR YEARS FROM 2005 TO 2009 FOR CULTIVATION AND THE OTHER PARTY WOULD PAY HER HALF OF THE NET INCOME OF TH E AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE MATTER, A LETTER WAS WRITTEN U/S 133 (6) ON 15.11.2011 TO THE TEHSILDAR, GOVINDAPURA SEEKING INFORMATION REGARDING THE USE OF LAND AND DETAILS OF CROPS TAKEN ON IT AND YIELD THEREOF. IN RESPONSE TO THE LETTER , IT WAS INFORMED BY TEHSILDAR, GOVINGPURA, BHOPAL THAT THE LAND IS QUESTION IS LYING FALLOW (PADAT) IN THE NAME OF SMT. NEELIMA SSHRIVASTAV, W/O SHRI V. K. SHRIVASTAV SINCE YEAR 2005 TO 2010 - 11. AN OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 0 9.12.2011 TO EXPLAIN SUCH CONTRADICTION. 4 ITA NO .63 /BLPR /2012 THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF CIT VS SAVITA RANI (2004) 270 ITR 40 (P & H) AND ARGUED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE IT ACT, THE LAND NEED NOT TO BE AGRICULTURE LAND BUT MUST BE USED FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE. IT WAS INFORMED THAT THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE WERE SOLD IN THE MANDI. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE RECORDS HAVE NOT BEEN CORRECTED AND INADVERTENTLY SHOWN AS PADAT LAND . THE AGRICULTURE LAND WAS USED FOR AGRICULTURE PURP OSES AS PER THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SHRI BHUJAL SINGH, SON OF BADRI NARAYAN SINGH AND THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS CULTIVATED THE LAND. AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE WERE DECIDED TO BE DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID LESSEE IN THE RATIO OF 50:50. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED AND HELD THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS A RESIDENTIAL PLOT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF BHOPAL. AS PER THE AO, THE LAND WAS NOT USED FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE. RESULTANTLY, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B WAS DISA LLOWED. 7. W HEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IT WAS AGAIN PLEADED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS IT WAS FOUND THAT THE LAND WAS CERTIFIED AS PADAT LAND ON THE BASIS OF VERY OLD RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANC E ON THE AGREEMENT WHICH WAS EXECUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CULTIVATION OF LAND. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THESE EVIDENCES, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - 10. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESS MENT ORDER AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT, THAT, THE LAND HAS BEEN USED FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE DURING THE AGREEMENT PERIOD FROM 2005 TO 2009 AND THIS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT BY SUBMITTI NG THE AGREEMENT. THE INITIAL ONUS TO PROVE THE LAND USED FOR AGRICULTURE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT WITH THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT. THE LAND USE AS CERTIFIED IBY8 THE LAND AUTHORITIES AS PADAT IS AS PER THE OLD LAND RECORDS WHICH CANNOT BE O NLY SOLE CRITERIA FOR DEFINING THE ACTUAL USE OF LAND. THE AO HAS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT, LAND RECORDS AUTHORITY HIMSELF HAS CERTIFIED THE LAND AS PADAT, AND IT CANNOT BE CHALLENGED WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIAL PROOF WHICH LEADS TO THE POSSIBILI TY THAT, IF IT IS CHALLENGED WITH SUBSTANTIAL PROOF, THE LAND USE 5 ITA NO .63 /BLPR /2012 STILL BE THAT OF AGRICULTURE AND THE APPELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED THE SAME BY PRODUCING THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED WITH SHRI BHUJAL SINGH MARAN FOR USE OF LAND IN AGRICULTURE PURPOSE. THE AO, IF HA D ANY DOUBTS REGARDING THE AGREEMENT AND OF THE OPINION THAT AGREEMENT IS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHE COULD HAVE EXAMINED AND ENQUIRED THE TENANT OF THE LAND SHRI BHUJAL SINGH TO REACH TO HIS FINAL CONCLUSION. SIMPLY, CONCLUDING THAT AN AGREEMENT WRITT EN ON A PLAIN PAPER IS NOT COGNIZABLE IS UNWARRANTED AND NOT JUSTIFIED. ON THE PLAIN READING OF SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF LAND, BEING USED BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR HIS PARENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF TRANSFER, ARE EXEMPT FROM TAX IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED ANOTHER LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER. THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLIED ALL THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 54B AND ALSO RELYING ON THE CASE LAW OF CIT VS SAVITA RANI (2004) 270 ITR 40 (P & H) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 54B LAND NEED NOT BE AGRICULTURAL LAND, BUT MUST BE USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PUR POSE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT THAT THE LAND WAS SITUATED IN A COMMERCIAL AREA OR THE VENDEE HAS PURCHASED IT FOR NO AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES IS NOT MATERIAL HENCE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54B. HENCE, THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.19,55,575/ - BY WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTION 54B CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND HEREBY DELETED. 8. W E HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMPILATION FILED AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE DECISION OF SAVITA RANI, 270 ITR 40. THE HONLE HIGH COURT HAS OPINED THAT THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION IS NOT RESTRICTED TO AGRICULTURE LAND ONLY BUT, THE BENEFIT IS TO BE GRANTED IF, THE LAND IS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. UPHOLDING THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL, RELIEF U/S 54B OF THE IT ACT WAS ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IS NOT HAVING SUBSTANTIAL FAR REACHING EFFECT AND THE AOS OBSERVATION ABOVE IS TRIFLE IN NATURE. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FACTUAL FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), A PORTION REPRODUC ED (SUPRA). AS A RESULT, WE REJECT GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 9. GROUND NO.3: - 6 ITA NO .63 /BLPR /2012 WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.15,00,000/ - MADE BY THE A. O. BY WITHDRAWING CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE I. TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF A NEW HOUSE SITUATED AT JABALPUR ON 26 - 03 - 2010 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.17,61,110/ - . THE OBJECTION OF THE AO WAS THAT THE INVES TMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS NOT TRANSACTED THROUGH CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 F OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - AS CAN BE SEEN THAT THE DEPOSIT IN CAPITAL GAI NS ACCOUNT SCHEME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN IS A PREREQUISITE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 54F IN CASE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO APPROPRIATE THE AMOUNT OF NET CONSIDERATION TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE ON WH ICH THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET TOOK PLACE, OR WHICH IS NOT UTILISED BY HIM FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY ON 13.05.2008 AND BOUGHT THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON 26.03.2010. THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN U/S 139 IN THE CASE WAS 31.07.2009 AND THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 22. 07.2009 N EITHER THE ASSESSEE NEITHER UTILIZED THE AMOUNT OF NET CONSIDERATION FOR PURC HASE OF NEW ASSET BEFORE FURNISHING THE RETURN NOR DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN ANY NOTIFIED SCHEME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME , 1988 BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54F IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS SHE DID NOT FULFIL THE PREREQUISITES OF THE PROVISION. THUS, THE DEDUCTION OF RS.15,94,810/ - CLAIMED U/S 54F IS DISALLOWED. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (1) (C) ARE INITIATED ON THIS POINT FOR WILFUL CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FU RNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 10 . WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT (A) GAVE HIS FINDING AS UNDER: - 13. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. I FI ND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT, THAT, RS.15,00,000/ - HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF NEW HOUSE PROPERTY WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE SALE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET AND THE BALANCE OF 7 ITA NO .63 /BLPR /2012 RS.2,50,000/ - IS PAID AFTER THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOM E FOR THE CONCERNED YEAR AND THE NEW HOUSE PROPERTY IS REGISTERED ON 26/03/2010. THUS, RS.15,00,000/ - WOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS USED FOR PURCHASE OF NEW HOUSE BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME TAX FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN TO THE EXTENT OF RS.15,00,000/ - WOULD BE ALLOWED U/S 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HENCE, IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.15,94,810/ - UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F IS RESTRICTED TO RS.15,00,000/ - ONL Y AND BALANCE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.94,801/ - U/S 54F IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND APPEAL TO THE EFFECT OF RS.94,801/ - IS DISMISSED. 11 . HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS PRODUCED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT TOWARDS PU RCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL FLAT AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT WAS PAID IN INSTALMENTS TO THE BUILDERS TOWARDS COST OF THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). AS A RESULT, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 12 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF NOV., 2015. SD/ - SD/ - (SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 30 TH NOV., 2015. LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/SR. PS 8 ITA NO .63 /BLPR /2012 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T., CONCERNED 4. CIT ( APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 23.11.2015 SR.P S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 24 .11.2015 / 30.11.2015 SR.P S 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.P S 6. DAT E OF PRONOUNCEMENT SR.P S 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P S 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER