LONDON STAR DIAMOND COMPANY (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7914/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2510 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK TRALSHWAL A
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.7914/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 LONDON STAR DIAMOND COMPANY (I) PVT. LTD. 1610/1611, PRASAD CHAMBERS, OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI-400004 / VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-5(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400020 ( ! /ASSESSEE) ( ' / REVENUE) PAN. NO. AAACL0576B ITA NO.5942/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 LONDON STAR DIAMOND COMPANY (I) PVT. LTD. 1610/1611, PRASAD CHAMBERS, OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI-400004 / VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-5(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400020 ( ! /ASSESSEE) ( ' / REVENUE) PAN. NO.AAACL0576B ! / ASSESSEE BY SHRI DEEPAK TRALSHWALA ' / REVENUE BY SHRI MOHAMMED RIZWAN-DR LONDON STAR DIAMOND CO. (I) PVT. LTD. ITA NO.7914/MUM/2010 & ITA. NO.5942/MUM/2011 2 # '$ % ! & / DATE OF HEARING : 01/12/2015 % ! & / DATE OF ORDER: 03/12/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08 AND 2008-09 AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER S DATED 23/08/2010 AND 08/06/2011 RESPECTIVELY OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MUMBAI. THE IDENTICAL G ROUND RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS PERTAINS TO CONFIRMING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.7,88,000/- (A.Y. 200 7-08 AND RS.7,50,000/-, (A.Y. 2008-09) OUT OF THE TOTAL INTE REST OF RS.2,55,08,155/-, CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS REVEN UE EXPENDITURE U/S 36 (1)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) IN RELATION TO PROPORTIONATE UTILIZATION OF BORROWED FUNDS FOR PAYMENT THE INSTALLMENT FOR CAPI TAL EXPENDITURE/OFFICE PREMISES IN DIAMOND BOURSE. 2. DURING HEARING OF THESE APPEALS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI DEEPAK TRASHAWALA, ADVANCED HIS ARGU MENTS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED BY CONTEND ING THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF THEIR OWN FUNDS (SHA RE CAPITAL AND RESERVES) AND NOT OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS . IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SUCH FUNDS WERE TAKEN BY WAY OF LOAN FOR WORKING CAPITAL FOR BUSINESS AND THE SECURED BY THE BUSINESS ASSETS. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT IS THAT OWN FUNDS ARE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON LONDON STAR DIAMOND CO. (I) PVT. LTD. ITA NO.7914/MUM/2010 & ITA. NO.5942/MUM/2011 3 THE DECISION IN CIT VS RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWE R LTD. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (BOM.) AND CIT VS BRITANIA INDUS TRIES LTD. (2006) 280 ITR 525 (CAL.) BY FURTHER INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE-6 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, SHRI MOHAMMED RIZWAN, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSI ON CONTAINED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY CONTENDING THAT INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF MIXED FUNDS, THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN IMPORT, EXPORT, PROCESSING AND TRADING OF DIAMONDS. ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT WAS NOTIC ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE ADVANCED MONEY FOR PURCHASING THE PROPERTY/OFFICE PROPERTY (USE FOR BU SINESS PURPOSES) AT BHARAT DIAMOND BOARS AND MADE INVESTME NT OF RS.1.28 CRORES IN F.Y. 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE WAS AS KED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE SAID BUILDING. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE INVESTMEN T WAS MADE OUT OF OWN FUNDS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE DECISION IN CIT VS HOTEL SAVERA (102 TAXMAN 247)(MA DRAS) AND METRO EXPORTS LTD. VS ITO (ITA NO.1693/MUM/2005 ) (MUM. TRIB.). THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT FUNDS FLOW AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROD UCED AND THE YEARLY FUND FLOW DOES NOT DEPICTS THE TRUE POSI TION OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, TH EREFORE, IN LONDON STAR DIAMOND CO. (I) PVT. LTD. ITA NO.7914/MUM/2010 & ITA. NO.5942/MUM/2011 4 VIEW OF PROVISO TO SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT DI SALLOWANCE WAS MADE. 2.2. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS), RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE DECISIO N FROM HONBLE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS CIT (199 ITR 702) AND HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN FALTON SUGAR WORKS VS CWT (208 ITR 98 9). WE NOTE THAT BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ON 23/08/2010 EXPLAINING THE POSITION OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND LOANS TAKEN AS WELL AS UTILISATION THEREOF. HOW EVER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFFIRMED T HE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 2.3. IF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, LEADING TO ADDITION MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME, CONCL USION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, IF K EPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYZED, WE FIND THAT THESE SHAR E CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS RS.4,50,00,000/-, SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IS RS.76,30,943/-, RESERVES AND SURPLUS ARE TO THE TUN E OF RS.9,81,66,911/-, THUS, THE TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE W ITH THE ASSESSEE ARE TO THE TUNE OF RS.14,48,98,998/-. THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE ARE TO TH E TUNE OF LONDON STAR DIAMOND CO. (I) PVT. LTD. ITA NO.7914/MUM/2010 & ITA. NO.5942/MUM/2011 5 RS.28,48,59,137/- (SECURED LOANS OF RS.28,21,11,321 /- AND UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.27,47,816), WHEREAS, THE ASSE SSEE APPLIED THE FUNDS IN THE FORM OF PURCHASING THE PRE MISES IN BHARAT DIAMOND BOARS (ADVANCE). ONLY AMOUNTS TO RS.3,82,92,000/-, MEANING THEREBY, SUFFICIENT OWN F UNDS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE THE PAYMEN T. IN SUCH A SITUATION, ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS, THE ASS ESSEE GETS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION FROM HONBLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT IN RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. (SUPRA) ORDER DATED 09/01/2009, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT EN OUGH INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE FOR DISPOSAL FOR INVESTMENT, THEREFORE, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES ALLOWED CLAIMED DED UCTION U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE HONBL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT IF THERE WERE F UNDS AVAILABLE BOTH INTEREST FREE AND OVERDRAFT AND/OR LOANS TAKEN , THEN A PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT INVESTMENTS WOULD BE O UT OF THE INTEREST-FREE FUNDS GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IF THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENTS. IN THIS CASE THIS PRESUMPTION WAS ESTABLISHED CONSI DERING THE FINDING OF FACT BOTH BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL. THE INTEREST WAS DEDUCTIBLE. WHILE COMING TO THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION, THE HONBLE COURT RELIED UPON THE DECISION FROM HONBLE APEX LONDON STAR DIAMOND CO. (I) PVT. LTD. ITA NO.7914/MUM/2010 & ITA. NO.5942/MUM/2011 6 COURT IN EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. VS CI T (1997) 224 ITR 627 (SC) AND WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD. VS C IT (1982) 134 ITR 219 (CAL.), S.A. BUILDERS LTD. VS CI T (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC). THEREFORE, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE GET SHELTER FROM THE AFORESAID DECISIONS. 2.4. NOW, WE ARE EXPECTED TO ANALYZE SECTION 36( 1)(III) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS A CODE IN ITSELF, WHICH MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN MONEY BORROWED TO ACQUIRE A CAPITAL ASSET O R A REVENUE ASSET. ALL THAT SECTION REQUIRES IS THAT TH E ASSESSEE MUST BORROW CAPITAL AND THE PURPOSE OF BORROWING MU ST BE BUSINESS, CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. UNLIKE SECTI ON 37 WHICH EXPRESSELY EXCLUDES AND EXPENSE OF A CAPITAL NATURE WHEREAS SECTION 36(1)(III) EMPHASIZELY USER OF THE CAPITAL AND NOT THE USER OF THE ASSET WHICH COMES INTO EXISTENC E AS A RESULT OF BORROWED CAPITAL. THE LEGISLATURE, THERE FORE, HAS MADE NO DISTINCTION IN SECTION 36(1)(III) BETWEEN CAPITAL BORROWED FOR REVENUE PURPOSES AND CAPITAL BORROWE D FOR CAPITAL PURPOSES THUS, THE ASSESSEE ENTITLED TO CL AIM INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED CAPITAL, PROVIDED, THAT CAPITAL IS USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, WE FIND S UPPORT FROM THE DECISION IN DCIT VS CORE HEALTH CARE LTD. (2008) 298 ITR 194, 199 (SC) AND RATIO LAID DOWN IN GUJARAT ST ATE AND CHEMICALS LTD. VS ACIT (2009) 313 ITR 244, 246(GUJ. ). 2.5. NOW, WE WILL EXAMINE WHAT INTEREST IS. THE ES SENCE OF INTEREST IS THAT IT IS A PAYMENT WHICH BECOMES D UE BECAUSE LONDON STAR DIAMOND CO. (I) PVT. LTD. ITA NO.7914/MUM/2010 & ITA. NO.5942/MUM/2011 7 THE CREDITOR HAS NOT HAD HIS MONEY AT HIS DISPOSAL. IT MAY BE REGARDED EITHER AS REPRESENTING THE PROFIT, HE MIGH T HAVE MADE IF HE HAD USED HIS MONEY OR CONVERSELY THE LOS S SUFFERED BECAUSE HE HAD NOT THAT USE. THE GENERAL I DEA IS THAT, HE IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR DEPRIVATIO N. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE DEFINITION OF INTEREST IN SECTION 2( 28A) MEANS INTEREST PAYABLE IN ANY MANNER IN RESPECT OF MONIE S BORROWED OR DEBT INCURRED... IN THE CONTEXT AND COLLOCATION OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT INTER EST IS RESTRICTED TO THAT ON MONEY BORROWED AND NOT ON DEB T INCURRED. INTEREST IS THUS IS THE RETURN OR COMPENS ATION FOR THE RETENTION BY ONE PERSON OF A SUM OF MONEY BELON GING TO OR OWED TO OTHER. THE ESSENCE OF INTEREST IS THAT I T IS A PAYMENT, WHICH BECOMES DUE BECAUSE THE CREDITOR HAS NOT HAD HIS MONEY AT THE DUE DATE. WHAT IS ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION U/S .36(1)(III) OF THE ACT IS ANY SUM PAI D BY WAY OF INTEREST IN COMMERCIAL SENSE. THERE CAN BE NO STRAI T JACKET FORMULA. OUR VIEW FIND SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION FR OM HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ITSELF IN CIT VS HINDUSTAN CONDUCTOR PVT. LTD. 240 ITR 762, 768-69, 770 (BOM.) . INTEREST ON MONEY BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSI NESS IS A NECESSARY ITEM OF EXPENDITURE IN A BUSINESS M.L.M. CHETIAR VS CIT (1959) 35 ITR 339 (MADRAS). THEREFORE, IT CA N BE CONCLUDED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF INTEREST UNDER THE PROVISION ALL THAT IS NECESSARY IS THAT, FIRSTLY, T HE MONEY, THAT IS A CAPITAL, MUST HAVE BEEN BORROWED BY THE ASSESS EE, SECONDLY, IT MUST HAVE BEEN BORROWED FOR BUSINESS P URPOSES LONDON STAR DIAMOND CO. (I) PVT. LTD. ITA NO.7914/MUM/2010 & ITA. NO.5942/MUM/2011 8 AND THIRDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE PAID INTEREST O N THE BORROWED AMOUNT. OUR PROPOSITION FIND SUPPORTS FRO M THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1) MADHAV PRAS JATIA VS CIT (1979) 118 ITR 200 (SC) 2) ADDL. CIT VS LAXMI AGENTS PVT. LTD. (1980) 125 ITR 22 7 (GUJ.) 3) MAROLIA & SONS VS CIT (1981) 129 ITR 475 (ALL.) 4) REGAL THEATOR VS CIT (1997) 225 ITR 205, 211 (DEL.) 5) CIT VS BOMBAY SAMACHAR LTD. (1969) 74 ITR 723 (BOM.) , 6) RAMKISHAN OIL MILLS VS CIT (1965) 56 ITR 186, 188-8 9 (MP), 7) BIRLA GWALIOR PVT. LTD. VS CIT (1962) 44 ITR 847 (MP) , 8) EAST INDIA INDUSTRIES (MADRAS ) LTD. VS CIT 31 ITR 803 AND 9) CALICO DYEING & PRINTING WORKS VS CIT (1958) 34 ITR 265 (BOM) IF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS ARE ANALYZED THEN IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(II I) OF THE ACT, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THERE MUST BE A FINDING T HAT BORROWED MONEY WAS UTILIZED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS HINDUSTAN CONDUCTOR PVT . LTD. (SUPRA) EVEN WENT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE OFFICER CA NNOT REFUSE TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON THE GROUND TH AT THE RATE OF INTEREST IS HIGH OR THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE BORROWED MONEY AT THE LOWER RATE OF INTEREST. THE EXPRESSION FOR THE LONDON STAR DIAMOND CO. (I) PVT. LTD. ITA NO.7914/MUM/2010 & ITA. NO.5942/MUM/2011 9 PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OCCURRING IN SECTION 36(1)(II I) OF THE ACT AND ALSO IN SECTION 37(1) IS WIDER IN SCOPE THAN TH E EXPRESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING.. INCOME O CCURRING IN SECTION 57(III) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE SCOPE FOR ALLOWING A DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(III) WOULD BE MUCH WIDER THAN O NE AVAILABLE U/S 57(III) (MAHDAV PRASAD JATIA VS CIT)( SUPRA). HOWEVER, WHERE THE BORROWED MONEY ARE NOT USE FOR T HE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS BUT ARE UTILIZE FOR MEETING PE RSONAL OBLIGATION OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF OR FOR PAYING TA X LIABILITY (KISHANCHAND CHELARAM) 114 ITR 654 (BOM.), OR ARE G IVEN OVER TO PARTNERS FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE (MAROLIA AND SON S VS CIT) 129 ITR 475 (ALL.), MILAPCHAND R. SHAH 58 ITR 525 ( MAD.), THE CLAIM OF INTEREST IS NOT ALLOWABLE. BUT FOR SUCH DI SALLOWANCE A FINDING OF FACT, BASED ON RELEVANT MATERIAL, IS NEC ESSARY (CIT VS R. K. METAL WORKS) 112 ITR 445 (P & H). IN VEECUMSE SS VS CIT (1996) 220 ITR 185, 190 (SC), THEIR LORDSHIP OF THE APEX COURT HAVE TAKEN A VIEW THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE CARRIES ON MORE THAN ONE BUSINESS AND ONE BUSINESS IS TRANSFERRED A RE CLOSED AND IF LOAN WAS TAKEN EARLIER FOR THE BUSINESS, WHI CH SUBSEQUENTLY CLOSED, BUT IF THE MANAGEMENT IS COMMO N, THE INTEREST PAID ON THAT LOAN CANNOT BE DENIED, THOUGH ONE OF THE LINES OF THE BUSINESS OR ANY BRANCH OF THE BUSINESS IS CLOSED FOR WHICH THE LOAN HAD BEEN TAKEN. 2.6. IT IS TRUE THAT NO ALLOWANCE NO SHAM OR COLOR ABLE TRANSACTION IS PERMISSIBLE. IF THE OBJECT OF THE B ORROWING IS ILLUSORY OR COLORABLE AND NOT GENUINELY FOR THE BUS INESS LONDON STAR DIAMOND CO. (I) PVT. LTD. ITA NO.7914/MUM/2010 & ITA. NO.5942/MUM/2011 10 PURPOSES, THEN THE PROVISION HAS NO APPLICATION. TO BE ADMISSIBLE AS AN ALLOWANCE UNDER THE SECTION INTERE ST MUST BE PAID IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL BORROWED. WHERE THE MONEY BORROWED HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES A ND ALSO EARNING INCOME UNDER THE RESIDUARY HEAD INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES THE INTEREST PAID ON MONEY SO BORROWED SHO ULD BE BIFURCATED PROPORTIONATELY BETWEEN THE BUSINESS IN COME AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES (H.K. INVESTMENT PVT. L TD. VS CIT 211 ITR 511, 514 (GUJ.). IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING D ISCUSSION, WE FIND MERIT IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE, BEING IDENTICAL ON FACT, THEREFORE, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AL LOWED. FINALLY, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 01/12/2015. SD/- SD/- ( RAJENDRA ) (JOGIN DER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER # $ MUMBAI; ( DATED : 03/12/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *+,- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./,- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 0 # 1! ( *+ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 0 0 # 1! / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 3'4 .! , 0 *+& * 5 , # $ / DR, LONDON STAR DIAMOND CO. (I) PVT. LTD. ITA NO.7914/MUM/2010 & ITA. NO.5942/MUM/2011 11 ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6 7$ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, /3+! .! //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , # $ / ITAT, MUMBAI DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL ORDER DICTATED DIRECTLY ON COMPUTER 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 01/12/2015 TO 02/12/15 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 02/12/15 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 02/12/15 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER