Sh. Kulwant Rai Bansal, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITSSA 14/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1082 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 02-09-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SULEKHA VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K GUPTA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 142(1); 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(SS). NO.14 /DEL/2011 BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1996 TO 31.02.2003 SH. KULWANAT RAI BANSAL, VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 25(1), H. NO.93, VIVEKANAND PURI, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI GIR / PAN:AIFPB9150P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. K. GUPTA, CA RESPONDENT BY : MS. SULEKHA VERMA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.10.2015 ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JM: THE ASSESSEE, BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.12.2010, PASSED BY LD. CIT( A) XXIV, NEW DELHI FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1996 TO 13.02.2003, IMPO SING PENALTY U/S 158 BFA(2) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT: THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.2,27,491/- U/S 158BFA(2) OF T HE I. T. ACT, 1961. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, DIRECTOR IN VARIOUS COMPANIES RUNNING IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. SHRI GOPAL VANASPATI LTD., M/S. SHYAM SUNDER VANASPATI LTD. AN D M/S. SAGAR IT(SS)NO.14/DEL/2011 2 INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. WAS SEARCHED U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 13 TH FEB., 2003. INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IN THE SHAPE OF ELECTRICITY BILLS, PURCHASE BILLS, TELEPHONE BILLS ETC. DULY DESCRIBED AT PARA 3 OF TH E PENALTY ORDER WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. NO BLOCK RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IN RESPONSE TO THE STATUTORY NOTICE. ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,61,097/- WAS ASSESSED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER ( THE A.O.), TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL. THE A.O. AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE ASS ESSEES SUBMISSIONS LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.2,27,491/- U/S 158BFA(2) OF TH E ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE PENALTY ORDER BY FIL ING APPEAL WHICH HAS BEEN DISMISSED VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER. FEELING AG GRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY FILING THE PRESE NT APPEAL. 4. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESS EE, CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONTENDED INTER ALIA THAT THE PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY THE A.O. IN A HASTE MANNER I.E. WITHIN A PERIOD OF 23 DAYS AND SUFFICIENT TIME HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPLIANCE; THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A SMALL PERSON WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO ENGAGE COUNSEL RATHER HIMSELF APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O. NOR HE COULD CHALL ENGE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER; THAT A SHORT TIME OF 25 DAYS HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPLIANCE WHICH WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO FILE THE RET URN; THAT EVEN DEFECTIVE NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED WHICH WAS RE QUIRED TO BE ISSUED U/S 158BC OF THE ACT; THAT THE A.O. HAS PASSED THE ORDE R WITHOUT HAVING JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER AS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN A REGULAR ASSESSEE IN WARD NO.32(3) IN CALCUTTA WHERE HE HAS BEEN FILING HIS I NCOME TAX RETURN FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ONWARDS AND THAT WHEN THE A SSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SEIZED MATERIAL THE BURDEN OF THE ASSESSEE STAN DS DISCHARGED AND TO IT(SS)NO.14/DEL/2011 3 INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 158 BFA(2) OF THE ACT INCOME OF EACH OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR NEEDS TO BE COMPUTED SEPARATELY BUT T HE A.O. HAS COMPUTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN LUMP-SUM WITHOUT IDENTIFY ING THE INCOME OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR; THAT ALL THE ADDITIONS HA VE BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF INCOME VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY T HE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW AND PRAYED FOR DELETING THE P ENALTY. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. D.R. REPELLED THE SUBMISS IONS MADE BY THE LD. A.R. BY CONTENDING INTER ALIA THAT THE ASSESSES HAS NEVER CHALLENGED THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY LD. CIT(A) NOR HE HAS ACCEPTED THE INCOME AND SEIZED MATERIAL BY FILING RETURN; THAT WHEN ASSESSEE HAS V OLUNTARILY ACCEPTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM SHO RTAGE OF TIME AS A GROUND TO FILE THE RETURN; THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALL ENGED THE FINDING OF FACTS AND AS SUCH APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, GONE THROUGH DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. PRIMARILY, THE LD. A.R. CONCENTRATED HIS ARGUMEN TS ON THE FACT THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPLIANCE TO FILE THE RETURN AND THAT A.O. HAS COMPUTED THE UNDISCLOSED I NCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD AT RS.3,61,097/- ON LUMP-SUM BASIS WITHOUT C OMPUTING THE INCOME OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR. 8. UNDISPUTEDLY, SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS C ONDUCTED IN THIS CASE ON 13.02.2003 AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 28.02 .2005 AND NOTICE U/S 158BC WAS ISSUED ON 08.02.2005 I.E. AFTER A PERIOD OF ABOUT TWO YEARS; ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE RETURN U/S 158BC ON O R BEFORE 23.02.2005; NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 21.02.2005 AND ASSE SSEE WAS CONFRONTED IT(SS)NO.14/DEL/2011 4 WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL ON 25.05.2005. APPLICATIO N FOR PROVIDING PHOTOCOPIES OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS WAS FILED ON 16.08. 2005 AND CONSEQUENTLY COPIES WERE SUPPLIED ON 06.10.2005. 9. NO DOUBT, A.O. U/S 158BC(2) IS EMPOWERED TO SERV E A NOTICE IN RESPECT OF SEARCH INITIATED TO SUCH PERSON REQUIRIN G TO FURNISH WITHIN SUCH TIME NOT BEING LESS THAN 15 DAYS BUT NOT MORE THAN 45 DAYS, BUT THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE FACTS OF THIS CASE GOES TO PROVE THAT 12 DOCUMENTS / THINGS WERE SEIZED DURING SEARCH OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON 1 3.02.2003 AND THE A.O. HAS TAKEN ABOUT TWO YEARS TO SCRUTINIZE THE SAME FO R ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 158BC BUT PROVIDED JUST 15 DAYS TIME TO THE ASSESSE E TO FILE THE RETURN WHICH HE HAS NOT FILED. THE INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE AS ENSHRINED IN SECTION 158BC(2) OF THE ACT IS TO PROVIDE THE SUFFICIENT TI ME WITH VARIATION OF 15 DAYS TO 45 DAYS TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN DEPENDING UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE A.O . HAS TAKEN ABOUT 2 YEARS TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AND EXPECTED THE ASSESSE E TO FILE RETURN WITHIN 15 DAYS. NOT ONLY THIS, COPIES OF SEIZED RECORD BY T HE A.O. HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 06.10.2005 I.E. AFTER 8 MONTHS A FTER THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF FILING THE RETURN AS RECORDED IN PARA 5.4 OF LD. CI T(A)S ORDER. SO IT IS IMPROBABLE TO EXPECT THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETUR N WITHIN A PERIOD OF 15 DAYS. 10. SO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO THE ASSESSEE TO SCRUTINIZE THE D OCUMENTS / THINGS SEIZED FROM HIM AND TO FILE THE RETURN RATHER PROCEEDED IN HASTE TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THEREBY VIOLATED THE RULE OF NATURA L JUSTICE BY NOT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IT(SS)NO.14/DEL/2011 5 11. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE FURTHER GO TO SUGGEST THAT AFORESAID COGENT REASONS HAVE BEEN DULY EXPLAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR NOT FILING THE RETURN BUT THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED RATHER DISMISSED IN A CRYPTIC MANNER BY HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON IMPOSITION OF PENALTY . 12. THE CONTENTION OF LD. D.R. THAT WHEN THE ASSESS EE VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM PAUCITY OF TIME TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME, IS NOT TENABLE, IN VIEW O F THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 158 BFA(2) ARE AKIN TO SECTION 271(1)(C) PROCEEDINGS AND THE BURDEN IS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THE FACTUM OF CONCEALMENT, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY AC CEPTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BROUGHT ON RECORD BY WAY OF SEIZED MATERIAL MAY BE FOR THE REASON TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND TO AVOID PROTRACTED LITIGATIO N. EXCEPT VOLUNTARY ACCEPTANCE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME, NO MATERIAL WHATS OEVER HAS BEEN COLLECTED BY THE A.O. BY CONDUCTING INDEPENDENT INV ESTIGATION TO PROVE THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. MOREOVER, MOST OF THE SEIZE D DOCUMENTS ARE HOUSE HOLD ITEMS LIKE AIR-CONDITIONER, MICROWAVE OVEN, CL OTHES, PHONE SETS, PURCHASE OF USED CAR ETC AND NONE OF THE ITEMS IS M ORE THAN THE VALUE OF RS.1,00,000/-. IN THE FACE OF THE FACT THAT UNDISC LOSED INCOME WAS ASSESSED TO RS.3,61,097/-, SUCH ITEMS APPEAR TO HAVE LOST SI GHT OF ASSESSEE TO BRING THE SAME TO TAX AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN PURCHASED WITHIN A PERIOD OF ABOUT EIGHT YEARS AS THE LAST PAYMENT OF RS.70,000/- AS PER SEI ZED DOCUMENTS WAS PAID IN CASH IN AUGUST, 1995. 13. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING UPON TH E JUDGEMENT CITED AS CHAIN SUKH RATHI VS CIT 270 ITR 0368 CONTENDED THAT TAX EXEMPTION LIMIT HAS TO BE KEPT IN MIND AND TAX SHOULD NOT BE CHARGE D ON THAT PART OF THE IT(SS)NO.14/DEL/2011 6 INCOME WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN EACH YEAR. HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE JUDGEMENT (SUPRA) WHILE INTERPRETING THE PROVIS IONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 158BB HELD THAT WHILE COMPUTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BB TAX EXEMPTION LIMIT HAS TO BE KEPT IN MIND, AND TAX SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED ON THAT PART OF THE I NCOME WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN EACH YEAR . 14. HOWEVER, THE A.O. IN THIS CASE HAS ARBITRARILY COMPUTED HE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD AT RS.3,61,0 97/- ON LUMP-SUM BASIS IN A SINGLE BLOCK PERIOD WHEREAS HE WAS REQUIRED TO COMPUTE THE YEAR-WISE INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE PE NALTY ORDER, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. 15. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE JUDGEM ENT CITED AS CIT VS HARKARAN DAS VED PAL IN I.T.A. NO. 1005 OF 2007 DEC IDED ON 12 TH NOVEMBER 2008 HELD IN PARA 22 AS UNDER: 22. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE COMPUTAT ION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE CONSTRUE D AS -UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER CL AUSE(C) OF SECTION 158 BCI. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY RETURNED A FINDIN G THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH, WHICH SUGGEST S THAT THE TRANSACTIONS FOR THE WHOLE YEAR OF 1999-2000 REQUIR ED ANY INVESTMENT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO FOUND AS A FACT THAT NO AMOUNT WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN INVESTED BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE FOR THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE WHOLE YEAR. TH E TRIBUNAL ALSO FOUND THAT EVEN THE ESTIMATE OF 1% NET PROFIT WAS M ERE GUESSWORK. ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS IT IS APPARENT THAT THE UN DISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN COMPUTED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS. DE-HORS THE SURRENDER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHICH COULD HAV E BEEN SAID TO HAVE BEEN FOUND AS A RESULT OF THE SEARCH AND, THER EFORE, THE COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A DETERMINATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 15 8 BC (C) OR 158 IT(SS)NO.14/DEL/2011 7 BB. THUS, EVEN DE HORS THE QUESTION OF APPLICABILIT Y OF THE DECISION IN SIR SHADILAL SUGAR AND GENERAL MILLS LTD (SUPRA) AN D WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 (1) (C) O F THE SAID ACT OR THE EFFECT OF THE INSERTION OF THE EXPLANATION THEREIN, WHEN THERE IS A BONA FIDE SURRENDER AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS COMPUT ED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH SURRENDER, NO PENALTY WOULD BE IMPOSA BLE UNDER SECTION 158 BFA (2) OF THE SAID ACT. THIS WOULD BE BECAUSE THERE IS NO DETERMINATION' OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY THE ASSESSE E UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 158 BC WHICH IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR IMPO SITION OF PENALTY. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF ALL THIS IS THAT, HAD THER E BEEN NO SURRENDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME INASMUCH AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS RETURNED A FIND ING OF FACT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE RELATABLE TO THE SEARCH ON THE BASIS OF WHICH SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME COULD HAVE BEEN DETERMINED. 16. THE RATIO OF JUDGEMENT (SUPRA) IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE DE-HORS T HE SURRENDER IS NO EVIDENCE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN SAID TO HAVE BEEN FO UND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH AND, THEREFORE, THE COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOS ED INCOME BY THE A.O. IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS DETERMINATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME CONTEMPLATED U/S 158BC(C) OR BY 158BB OF THE ACT. SO, WHEN THERE IS A BONA FIDE SURRENDER, UNDISCLOSE D INCOME IS COMPUTED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH SURRENDER, THAT TOO IN THE BLOCK PERIOD ON LUMP SUM BASIS, NO PENALTY WOULD BE IMPOSABLE U/S 158BFA (2) OF THE ACT BECAUSE THERE IS NO DETERMINATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 158BC WHICH IS THE REQUIREMENT FOR I MPOSITION OF PENALTY. 17. EVEN A BARE PERUSAL OF SEIZED MATERIAL REFERRED TO IN PARA 3 OF THE PENALTY ORDER, SHOWS THAT NO ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY HAS BEEN MADE SUGGESTING TH E UNDISCLOSED INCOME NOR ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. REGARDING CONCEALED INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT MA TERIAL ON THE FILE EXCEPT IT(SS)NO.14/DEL/2011 8 VOLUNTARY ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO THE UNDI SCLOSED INCOME SUFFICIENT TO PROCEED WITH THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. FROM THE UNDISPUTED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS PROVED THAT WHEN T HE ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BONA-FIDELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUYING PEACE OF MIND AND TO AVOID PROTRACTED LITIGATION, N O INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS PER SECTION1 58BF(C) AND SECTION 158BB(1) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN A MADE, THERE IS NO QU ESTION OF IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT. 18. LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON THE TRI BUNAL JUDGEMENT CITED AS SMT. MALA DAYANIDHI VS DCIT 92 TTJ 270 AND NEMIC HAND VS ACIT 93 TTJ 564 (BLORE), CONTENDED THAT PROVISIONS CONTAIN ED U/S 158BFA ARE NOT MANDATORY BUT DISCRETIONARY AND IN THE INSTANT CASE DISCRETION HAS NOT BEEN EXERCISED PROPERLY. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, A.O. HAS PROCEEDED IN HASTY MANNER IN M AKING ASSESSMENT, CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN AND THEN T O PROCEED IN IMPOSING PENALTY IN HASTY MANNER WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH, THE DISCRETION CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN EXERCISED JUDICIOUSLY. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 19. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH OCT., 2015. SD./- SD./- ( T. S. KAPOOR) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:13 TH OCT., 2015 SP IT(SS)NO.14/DEL/2011 9 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 10/9 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 11,15,17,21 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 13/10/2015 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 13/10 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 13/10 SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER