DCIT,Circle-17(1), Hyd, Hyderabad V. Dr. Reddy's Labouratories Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 779/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6484 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2018
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J SIRI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHANKAR KAPSE; K R SEKHAR
• Keywords: Gift; Wrong claim; Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 779/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE 17(1), HYDERABAD. VS. DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AAACD 7999 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI J. SIRI KUMAR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.R. SEKHAR & SHANKAR KAPSE DATE OF HEARING : 04-07-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-07-2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) 5, HYD ERABAD, DATED 25/02/2017 FOR AY 2006-07 WHEREBY HE CANCELLED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE, ASSESSEE COMP ANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF BULK DRUGS, APIS, FORMULATIONS AND OTHER PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS, FIL ED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.11.2006 ADMITTING 'NIL' INCOME UNDER N ORMAL PROVISIONS AND RS.2,04,62,90,909/- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 115JB, WHICH WAS REVISED TO RS.1,97,74,95,284/- BY FILING OF REV ISED RETURN ON 29.10.2007, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THI S CASE, A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 31.1 2.2009 AS 2 ITA NO. 779/H/15 DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LTD., HYD. REQUIRED U/S 144C TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJEC TIONS BEFORE THE DRP U/S 144C(2) ON 29.01.2010. THE DRP PASSED AN OR DER U/S 144C(5) ON 30.09.2010 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER BAS ED ON THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DRP, PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 01.11.2010. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATE D PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT STATING THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD MADE WRONG CLAIMS UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS AND LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.34,65,20,080/- WHICH IS STATED TO BE EQUAL TO 10 0% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS UNDER: (A) THE COMPANY HAD MADE ADEQUATE DISCLOSURES TO AS SESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 12TH NOVEMBER, 2007 AND O N 27TH FEBRUARY, 2008 WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS CLAIMS AND IS SUES RELATING TO CLAIMS MADE IN THE TAX RETURN. DUE TO T HE FACT THAT THE TAX RETURN FOR THE YEAR WAS FURNISHED IN E-RETU RN FORMAT BY ONLINE FILING, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE TO F URNISH THE DETAILS ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME, HENCE THE DISC LOSURES WERE MADE VIDE ABOVE LETTERS. (B) THE ASSESSEE CO-OPERATED AND FURNISHED ALL THE PARTICULARS, DETAILS, DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION, ETC. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY PARTICULARS. FURTHER T HERE IS ALSO NO FINDING OF SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TO THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF ANY PARTICUL ARS. EVEN CONSEQUENT TO THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 271, THE REQ UIREMENT OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION AND THE PREVALENCE OF 'MENS REA' IS STILL A PRE-REQUISITE. (C) IT MAY BE NOTED THAT ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE WER E A RESULT OF ISSUES IN RESPECT OF WHICH MORE THAN ONE VIEW IS PO SSIBLE. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THERE ARE NO DISALLOWANCES ON FAC TUAL ISSUES. THIS POSITION IS VALIDATED BY THE ORDER OF THE HON' BLE ITAT FOR A.Y. 2006-07 (ITA 1605/HYD/10). WHILE IT DISALLOWED CERTAIN CLAIMS, PURELY ON LEGAL ARGUMENTS, IT ALLOWED MANY CLAIMS. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT MANY ISSUES WERE SET ASIDE T O THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIMS IN THE LIGH T OF THE OBSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE ITAT. (D) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC EVEN AFTER THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION IN SECTION 271. THE CASE OF 3 ITA NO. 779/H/15 DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LTD., HYD. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED FROM THE POI NT OF VIEW WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WITHHELD ANY PARTICULARS OR CO NCEALED ANY INCOME WITH ANY MALAFIDE INTENTION. IF THERE IS NO SUCH FINDING, THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT WARRANTED AND NEEDS TO B E QUASHED. 5.2 WHILE CONTINUING THE SUBMISSIONS, THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE IN CASE OF DISCLOSURE O F PARTICULARS AND WHERE THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE, THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC. WHILE ELABORATING ON VARIOUS ISSUES ON WHICH THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE AND PENALTY LEVIED, THE ASSESSE E HAD SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS ADDITIONS AS MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND APPROVED BY DRP WERE EITHER DELETED OR SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY THE ITAT, HYDERABAD 'B' BENCH VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO.1605/HYD/2010 DATED 08.0 8.2013. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON FEW OTHER ISSUES, THE IT AT HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS, BUT ARE STILL DEBATABLE IN NATURE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE' HAD FURNISHED ALL THE PARTICULARS, WH ILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER, WHILE ELABORATING ON THE DECISION OF ITAT ON VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE, THE ASSESSEE FURNIS HED THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT, ALONG WITH A CHA RT INDICATING THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS / ORDER ON EACH OF THE ISSU ES UNDER REFERENCE, ON WHICH PENALTY WAS LEVIED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 3.1 FURTHER, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 322 ITR 158, SUBMITTED THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE IN THE CASES OF DISCLOS URE OF PARTICULARS BY ASSESSEE. ALSO RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF VS. JCIT, 291 ITR 519, SUBMITTED THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC AND LEVY OF PENALTY NOT ON LY DISCRETIONARY IN NATURE BUT SUCH DISCRETION IS REQUIRED TO BE EXERCI SED ON THE PART OF THE AO. 4. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS DISCUSSED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AT LENGTH AND ANALYSED THE ISSUE WITH VARIOUS CASE LAW, DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS. 34,65,20,080/- BY OBSERVING AS U NDER: 5.8 CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT WAS CLEAR IN THIS CASE THAT THE ISSUES ON WHICH THE ADDITIONS MADE AN D PENALTY LEVIED, WERE NOT HELD TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHIN G OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN FACT THE ADDITIONS UPHEL D OR OTHERWISE, 4 ITA NO. 779/H/15 DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LTD., HYD. ARE A RESULT OF REQUIRED DEBATES ON THE RELEVANT IS SUES, AND THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE ADDIT IONS MADE BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, ARE ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALM ENT OF INCOME. FURTHER, THE ISSUES UNDER REFERENCE ARE DEB ATABLE IN NATURE AND MORE THAN ONE VIEW IS POSSIBLE. UNDER TH E CIRCUMSTANCES, BASED ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE R ATIO OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS, IT IS REASONABLE TO HOLD THAT P ENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IS NOT SU STAINABLE. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: A. ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. B. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN LAW IN DELETING THE PE NALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE AO HAS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT THE ELEMENT OF FALSE CLAIM, BOTH WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION DURING INITIATION OF PENALTY IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER, AS WELL AS IN THE PENALTY ORDER. C. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN LAW IN DELETING THE PE NALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IGNORING THE FACT THAT ADDITIO NS ARE MADE ON FACTS AND PERTAIN TO DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED ON THE BASI S OF INCORRECT INFORMATION WHICH AMOUNTS TO FILING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. D. ANY OTHER GROUND(S) THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIM E OF HEARING. 6. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) WAS PASSED ON 31/05/2011 AND THIS ORDER WAS PASSED AFTE R THE DRP ORDER, WHICH WAS PASSED ON 30/09/2010. THE ASSESSEE PREFER RED APPEAL BEFORE ITAT AND FINAL ORDER WAS PASSED ON 08/08/201 3. IN THE ITAT ORDER, THERE WERE 13 ISSUES AND THE SAME WERE ADJUD ICATED AS BELOW: S.NO. ADDITION MADE BY THE AO DRP ITAT 1 RS. 13,06,87,515/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES TOWARDS INTEREST TO DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICALS AND PETRO CHEMICALS. CONFIRMED ALLOWED 2 RS. 2,08,02,460/- TOWARDS BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF CONFIRMED ALLOWED 5 ITA NO. 779/H/15 DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LTD., HYD. 3 RS. 8,50,98,956 TOWARDS LOSS ON INVESTMENT IN AURATIS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. CONFIRMED ALLOWED 4 RS. 4,90,00,000/- TOWARDS BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF OF PATHNET INDIA CONFIRMED ALLOWED 5 RS. 13,30,73,097 TOWARDS EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ON ESOP CONFIRMED ALLOWED 6 LOCAL DOCTORS MEET EXPENDITURE CONFIRMED SET ASIDE TO AO 7 RS. 8,84,41,258 TOWARDS LOCAL DOCTOR SERVICES CONFIRMED SET ASIDE TO AO 8 RS. 15,31,97,199/- TOWARDS ALLOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER EXPENSES TO THE UNITS CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 10B/80IB CONFIRMED SET ASIDE TO AO 9 RS. 18,19,60,500 TOWARDS CLAIM OF CUSTOMERS CONTRACTS CONFIRMED CONFIRMED 10 RS. 49,51,77,983/- TOWARDS CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF GOA UNIT CONFIRMED CONFIRMED 11 RS. 8,25,910/- TOWARDS BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES CONFIRMED CONFIRMED 12 RS. 68,62,136/- TOWARDS GIFTS AND COMPLIMENTS CONFIRMED CONFIRMED 13 RS. 41,33,675/- TOWARDS MARKETING EXPENSES CONFIRMED CONFIRMED FROM THE ABOVE, THE HONBLE ITAT HAS SET ASIDE OR D ELETED MOST OF THE ISSUES AND CONFIRMED ONLY 5 ISSUES. EVEN THE IS SUES, WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY HONBLE ITAT, FOR WHICH, ALL THE RELEV ANT INFORMATIONS WERE PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIE S, ARE DEBATABLE ISSUES. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE REFER TO THE FOLLOWI NG CASES: 6.1 IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. HEMALATHA RAJAN [201 7] 84 TAXMANN.COM 25, THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD THAT THERE BEING NO MENS REA ON PART OF ASSESSEE QUA CONCEALME NT AND NON- DISCLOSURE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WERE NOT WARRANTED. 6.2 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS ( P) LTD., [2010] 189 TAXMAN 322 (SC), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: A GLANCE OF PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD S UGGEST THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY , THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS 6 ITA NO. 779/H/15 DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LTD., HYD. INCOME. THE INSTANT CASE WAS NOT THE CASE OF CONCEA LMENT OF THE INCOME. THAT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE EI THER. IT WAS AN ADMITTED POSITION IN THE INSTANT CASE THAT NO IN FORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR IN ACCURATE. IT WAS NOT AS IF ANY STATEMENT MADE OR ANY DETAIL SUPP LIED WAS FOUND TO BE FACTUALLY INCORRECT. HENCE, AT LEAST, P RIMA FACIE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INA CCURATE PARTICULARS. THE REVENUE ARGUED THAT SUBMITTING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW FOR THE EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. SUCH CANNOT BE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCERNED WORDS. THE WORD S ARE PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO THE PENALTY UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISIO N, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAG INATION, MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THEREFORE, IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE CONDITIONS UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) EXIST BEFORE THE PENALTY IS IMPOSED. THER E CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETUR N FILED, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT, WHERE THE ASSESS EE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PA RTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. THE WORD 'PARTICULARS' MUST MEAN THE DETAILS SUPPLI ED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORREC T, NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. IN THE INSTANT CAS E, THERE WAS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSE E IN ITS RETURN WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE. S UCH NOT BEING THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF INVITING TH E PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM , WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD C LAIMED EXCESSIVE DEDUCTIONS KNOWING THAT THEY WERE INCORRE CT, IT AMOUNTED TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT WAS ARGUED TH AT THE FALSEHOOD IN ACCOUNTS CAN TAKE EITHER OF THE TWO FO RMS: (I) AN ITEM OF RECEIPT MAY BE SUPPRESSED FRAUDULENTLY, (I I) AN ITEM OF EXPENDITURE MAY BE FALSELY (OR IN AN EXAGGERATED AM OUNT) CLAIMED, AND BOTH TYPES ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE TAXAB LE INCOME AND, THEREFORE, BOTH TYPES AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF ONE'S INCOME AS WELL AS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SUCH CONTENTION COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS OF ITS EXPEN DITURE AS WELL AS INCOME IN ITS RETURN, WHICH DETAILS, IN THEMSELV ES, WERE NOT FOUND TO BE INACCURATE NOR COULD BE VIEWED AS THE C ONCEALMENT 7 ITA NO. 779/H/15 DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LTD., HYD. OF INCOME ON ITS PART. IT WAS UP TO THE AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT ITS CLAIM IN THE RETURN OR NOT. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSE SSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPT ED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE, THAT, BY ITSELF, WOU LD NOT ATTRACT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). IF THE CONTENT ION OF THE REVENUE WAS ACCEPTED, THEN IN CASE OF EVERY RETURN WHERE THE CLAIM MADE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR ANY REASON, THE ASSESSEE WOULD INVITE PENALTY UNDER SEC TION 271(1)(C). THAT IS CLEARLY NOT THE INTENDMENT OF TH E LEGISLATURE. 6.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIN D ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE T HE PENALTY OF RS. 34,65,20,080/- MADE U/S 271(1)(C) AND ACCORDINGLY, UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY T HE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JULY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 20 TH JULY, 2018 KV COPY TO:- 1) DCIT, CIRCLE 17(1), 9 TH FLOOR, SIGNATURE TOWERS, OPP. BOTANICAL GARDEN, KOTHAGUDA, KONDAPUR, HYD. 2) M/S DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LTD., 8-2-337, ROA D NO. 03, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 034. 3) CIT(A) - 5, HYDERABAD 4) CIT - 5, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 6) GUARD FILE 8 ITA NO. 779/H/15 DR. REDDYS LABORATORIES LTD., HYD. S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.P.S/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.P.S./PS SR.P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER