KARAN JOHAR LEGAL HEIR OF YASH JOHAR, PROPRIETOR DHARMA PRODUCTIONS, MUMBAI v. DCIT CEN CIR-31, MUMBAI

ITA 1033/MUM/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 103319914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAAPJ7057A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 1033/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant KARAN JOHAR LEGAL HEIR OF YASH JOHAR, PROPRIETOR DHARMA PRODUCTIONS, MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT CEN CIR-31, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 31-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 30-12-2009
Next Hearing Date 30-12-2009
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 16-02-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARA GHAVAN (JM) ITA NO. 1033/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2005-06 SHRI KARAN JOHAR LEGAL HEIR OF YASH JOHAR PROPRIETOR DHARMA PRODUCTIONS 29 JAINS ARCADE 2 ND FLOOR 14 TH ROAD KHAR(W) MUMBAI-400 052 PAN-AAAPJ 7057A VS. THE DCIT CEN CIR. 31 MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI VIJAY MEHTA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R.S. SRIVASTAVA O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2008 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-IV FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT LATE SHRI YASH B. JOHAR WAS PROPRIETOR OF M/S DHARMA PRODUCTIONS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF HINDI FEATURE FILMS AND DERIVES INCOME FROM OVERFLOW OF FILMS SALE OF SATELLITE RIGHTS AND OTHER DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS OF HINDI FEATURE FILMS. DURING THE YEAR THERE IS NO RELEASE OF FEATURE FILM PRODUCTION NO. 5 AND PRODUCTION NO. 6 ARE UNDER PRO DUCTION. INCOME DECLARED IS FROM THE REALIZATION OF FILMS RELEASED IN EARLIER YEARS. COST OF PRODUCTION CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF THESE FILMS INCURR ED DURING THE YEAR WAS EXAMINED. IN RESPECT OF FILM KAL HO NA HO THE COST OF PRODUCTION INCLUDES ITA NO. 1033/MUM/2009 2 `SPECIAL EFFECT EXPENDITURE OF RS 4 71 491/-. SINC E THE PICTURE HAS ALREADY BEEN RELEASED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR ASSESSE E WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF SPECIAL EFFECT EXPENSES CLAIMED IN T HIS YEAR. IT IS FOUND TO BE THE WITHHOLDING TAX REIMBURSED TO TATA ELXSI TO WHO M THE JOB FOR VISUAL EFFECT WAS GIVEN. AS PER LETTER DATED 10.9.2003 FRO M TATA ELXSI ADDRESSED TO ASSESSEE THE COST OF VISUAL EFFECT IS AGREED AT RS 76 LAKHS. IN ADDITION TO THAT ASSESSEE HAS TO BEAR GOVERNMENT TAXES INCLU DING 20% WITHHOLDING TAX AND FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES INCURRE D BY TATA ELXSI. THE DEBIT NOTE IN RESPECT OF WITHHOLDING TAX ISSUED BY TATA ELXSI WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE ON 20.4.2004. HENCE THE CLAIM IS MADE IN THIS YEAR. SINCE THE PAYMENT OF WITHHOLDING TAX IS COVERED BY PROVIS IONS OF SEC 40(A) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE W ITHHOLDING TAX PAID SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS SPECIAL EFFECT COST AND WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(II) BEING TAX PAID ON BEHALF O F THE FOREIGN PARTY. 3. THE ASSESSEES AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE VIDE LETTER DATED 28.9.2007 SUBMITTED THEIR CONTENTION AS UNDER: BILLS FOR PAYMENT OF TATA ELEXSI FOR SPECIAL EFFEC T IS ENCLOSED. THE SAID EXPENSES ARE SHOWN AS COST OF PRODUCTION OF KH NH. IN THIS REGARD PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT M/S TATA ELEXSI HAS OUTSOURCED SOME OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL EFFECT TO M/S DFL WHICH IS A NON RESIDENT CONCERN AND WHILE REMITTING THE PAYMENT FO R THE OUTSOURCING ACTIVITIES WITHHOLDING TAX WAS BORNE BY M/S TATA ELEXSI WHICH IS BEING REIMBURSED FROM THE ASSESSEE BY RAIS ING BILL IN THIS REGARD SO FAR AS THE SAID AMOUNT IS INCURRED FOR TH E SPECIAL EFFECT THE WITHHOLDING TAX BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AN EL EMENT OF COST FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID AMOUNT DOES NOT REFER TO ANY TAX WHICH IS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE AO REJECTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE F OR THE FOLLOWING REASONS; (I) THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 10.9.2003 FROM TAT A ELXSI CLEARLY STATES THAT PRICE OF VISUAL EFFECTS IS RS 76 LAKHS. NOTE 2 & 3 OF ITA NO. 1033/MUM/2009 3 THIS LETTER CLEARLY STATES THAT OVER AND ABOVE 76 L AKHS ASSESSEE SHALL BEAR GOVERNMENT TAXES INCLUDING WITHHOLDING T AX AT 20% AND ALL TRAVELLING BOARDING & LODGING EXPENSES INCU RRED OVERSEAS ON BEHALF OF DHARMA PRODUCTION. (II) TATA ELXSI HAS ACCORDINGLY DEBITED ASSESSEES ACCOUNT AFTER PAYING WITHHOLDING TAX OF RS 471491/- IT HAS ONLY I SSUED DEBIT NOTE AND NOT BILL AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE. (III) IT WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THEY HAVE TO BEAR THE WITHHOLDING TAX LIABILITY EVEN THOUGH TATA ELXSI HAS APPOINTED DLF A NON RESIDENT CONCERN FOR EXECUTING THE WORK. (IV) THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 40(A)(II) PROHIBITS THE ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF ANY SUM PAID ON ACCOUNT OF ANY RATE OR TAX LEVIED ON THE PROFITS OR GAINS OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OR ASSESSED AT A PROPORTION OF OR OTHERWISE ON THE BASIS OF ANY SU CH PROFITS OR GAINS OF WHICH ASSESSEE IS AWARE OF. THE PROVISION IS SPECIFIC AND NO EXEMPTION IS PROVIDED. (V) SECTION 40(A)(II) DOES NOT MAKE ANY DISTINCTI ON BETWEEN THE INCOME TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS OWN INCOME A ND INCOME TAX PAID ON BEHALF OF ANY OTHER PERSON. IN THIS CAS E IT WAS THE TAX LIABILITY OF DLF WHICH ASSESSEE HAS PAID. HENCE AS SESSEE CANNOT TAKE THE PLEA THAT THE WITHHOLDING TAX BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AN ELEMENT OF COST OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAI D AMOUNT DOES NOT REFER TO ANT TAX WHICH IS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE NATURE OF THE PAYMENT DOES NOT ALTER IF THE PAYMENT IS MADE B Y A THIRD PARTY. THE SUM OF RS 471491/- IS UNDOUBTEDLY THE T AX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF DLF AND THE PAYMENT IS HI T BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 40(A)(II). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE AO DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM OF SPECIAL EFFECT EXPENDITURE OF RS 471491/-. 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS SUBMITTED THAT THE SECTION 40(A)(II) DISALLOWS AS DEDUCTION ANY AM OUNT OF TAX CLAIMED AS AN EXPENSE. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE LD COUNSEL MEN TIONED THAT IT IS A PART IF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION THAT ANY AMOUNT OF T AX HAS TO BE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE ASSESSEE THE TAX SO BORNE FOR MS THE COST OF SPECIAL ITA NO. 1033/MUM/2009 4 EFFECT WHICH IS THE COST OF PRODUCTION FOR THE ASSE SSEE. IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE AO HAD ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 40(A)(II) OF THE IT ACT 1961. 6. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BY HOL DING AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND I AM NOT CONVINCED BY THE ARGUMENTS GIVEN BY THE LD COUN SEL. THE READING OF THE AGREEMENT WITH TATA ELAXSI CLEARLY S TIPULATES THAT ALL TAXES INCLUDING WITHHOLDING TAX @ 20% HAS TO BE BOR NE BY DHARMA PRODUCTIONS. SEC 40(A)(II) CLEARLY PROHIBITS THE DE DUCTION OF ANY SUM PAID ON ACCOUNT OF ANY TAX LEVIED ON THE PROFIT AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OR ASSESSED AT A PROPORTION ON THE BASIS OF ANY SUCH PROFIT OR GAINS. THERE IS NO EXEMPTION PRO VIDED IN THE SAID PROVISION OF THE ACT. SEC 40(A)(II) DOES NOT MAKE ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE INCOME TAX PAID BY THE APPELLANT ON ITS OWN INCOME OR INCOME TAX PAID ON BEHALF OF ANY OTHER PERSON. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT WAS A TAX LIABILITY OF DLF/ TATA ELXSI WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID. THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT. THE ACTION OF THE AO IS UPHELD. 7. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AN D RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE HONBLE CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4 71 491/- MADE BY THE LD A.O. BY INVOKING PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 . THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MAY BE DELETED. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI VIJAY MEHT A SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND TATA E LXSI THE AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO TATA ELXSI IS RS. 76 LAK HS PLUS TAX IF ANY THEY HAVE TO BEAR IN CASE OF SUBCONTRACT WITH NON- RESID ENT AND TRAVEL EXPENSES. OBTAINING THE SERVICES OF NON-RESIDENT IS PURELY THE CHOICE OF TATA ELXSI. NON-RESIDENT HAS NOT BEEN EMPLOYED AT T HE ASSESSEES REQUEST AND AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED THE AMOUNT S OF TAX BORNE BY ITA NO. 1033/MUM/2009 5 TATA ELXSI ON BEHALF OF THE NON-RESIDENT IS NOTHIN G BUT COST PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO TATA ELXSI. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EN TERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE NON-RESIDENT AND IT IS NOT THE ASSESSEE WH O HAD CONTRACTED TO BEAR THE TAX OF THE NON-RESIDENT. HENCE IN OUR OPIN ION THE AMOUNT OF RS 4 71 491/- IS PART OF THE AGREED FEES PAYABLE TO TA TA ELXSI AND HENCE IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF AIR INDIA LTD. VS DCIT VS 118 ITD 401 (MUM) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IT IS NOT T HE FORM BUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTION THAT HELPS TO DETERMIN E THE TRUE CHARACTER OF THE PAYMENT. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DASHMESH TRANSPORT CO. PVT. LTD. VS CIT PUNJAB 93 ITR 275 W HEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT TH E SUM OF RS. 1 01 095 WAS NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AS A DEDUCTION BY REASON OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 40(A) (II) OF THE ACT. WHEN IT IS THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS HIS INCOME W HICH ARE BEING ASSESSED SECTION 40 PREVENTS DEDUCTION OF TAX WHIC H HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS. T HE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE DID NOT FALL IN THIS CATE GORY. IT WAS PAYMENT OF THE LIABILITY TO TAX OF ANOTHER PERSON WHO WAS THE TRANSFEROR AND NOT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE MERE FACT THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMST ANCES THAT LIABILITY WAS PUT ON THE SHOULDERS OF THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT IN AN Y MANNER DETRACT FROM THE FACT THAT THE TAX WAS ONE PAYABLE BY THE TRANSF EROR. 11. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI R.S. S RIVASTAVA SUBMITTED THAT SEC. 40(A)(II) READS AS FOLLOWS: ANY SUM PAID ON ACCOUNT OF ANY RATE OF TAX LEVIED ON THE PROFITS OR GAINS OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OR A SSESSED AT A PROPORTION OF OR OTHERWISE ON THE BASIS OF ANY SUC H PROFITS OR GAINS. ITA NO. 1033/MUM/2009 6 12. THE KEYWORD IS ANY AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIO N U/S. 40A (II) SPECIFIC AND NO EXEMPTION IS PROVIDED. THE DR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE TAX PAID IS BEING REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. 14. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS . CROSS FRASER (244 ITR 654 AT PAGE 658) HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAD IN THIS CASE PERMITTE D THE PAYEE BHEL TO BEAR THE TAX LIABILITY ON THE PAYMENT TO BE MADE TO THE ENGINEER OF THE FOREIGN SUPPLIER. THE TAX LIABILIT Y BORNE BY BHEL HAS TO BE DEEMED TO BE THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE ENGINEER OF THE FOREIGN SUPPLIER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THAT FOREIGN NATIONALS INCOME AND THE TAX PAYABLE ON THAT GROSS AMOUNT. VIZ. TH E AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID TO THE FOREIGN NATIONAL PLUS THE TAX LIABILITY THEREON HAS TO BE TREATED AS HIS GROSS INCOME. 15. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT WHAT IS BEING P AID BY THE INDIAN RESIDENT PAYER BE IT TATA ELXSI OR THE ASSESSEE WH EN THEY REIMBURSE TATA ELXSI IS ONLY THE INCOME OF THE NON RESIDENT PAYABLE AS TAX TO THE INDIA GOVERNMENT. THE SAME WILL NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF TAX ON INCOME FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(II). ON THIS ACCO UNT ALSO THE AMOUNT REIMBURSED BY THE ASSESSEE TO TATA ELXSI CANNOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(II). 16. EVEN OTHERWISE THE TAX OF THE NON-RESIDENT RECI PIENT BORNE BY THE INDIAN PAYER IS NOTHING BUT DEEMED INCOME OF THE NO N-RESIDENT. WHENEVER PAYER BEARS THE WITHHOLDING TAX SUCH AMOU NT IS DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE TAX TO BE PAID I S GROSSED UP. THAT IS THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOTIONALLY IN CREASED AND FROM ITA NO. 1033/MUM/2009 7 SUCH NOTIONALLY INCREASED INCOME THE TDS AT THE AP PROPRIATE RATE IS PAID BY THE RESIDENT PAYER. SEC 195A WHICH DEALS WITH GR OSSING UP READS AS UNDER: INCOME PAYABLE NET OF TAX- IN A CASE OTHER THAN THAT REFERRED TO IN SUB SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 192 WHERE UNDER AN AGR EEMENT OR OTHER ARRANGEMENT THE TAX CHARGEABLE ON ANY INCOME REFER RED TO IN THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER IS TO BE BORNE BY THE PERSON BY WHOM THE INCOME IS PAYABLE THE FOR THE PURPOSES O F DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER THOSE PROVISIONS SUCH INCOME SHALL BE INCREASED TO SUCH AMOUNT AS WOULD AFTER DEDUCTION OF TAX THEREON AT THE RATES IN FORCE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SUCH INCO ME IS PAYABLE BE EQUAL TO THE NET AMOUNT PAYABLE UNDER SUCH AGREEMEN T OR ARRANGEMENT. (UNDERLINING OURS) SEC 198 PRESCRIBES THAT THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IS THE INCOME OF THE RECIPIENT. 198. TAX DEDUCTED IS INCOME RECEIVED: ALL SUMS DED UCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THIS CH APTER SHALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE BE DEEMED TO BE INCOME RECEIVED: 17. SEC 28(IVA) READS AS UNDER: (IV) THE VALUE OF ANY BENEFIT OR PERQUISITE WHETH ER CONVERTIBLE INTO MONEY OR NOT OBTAINED BY ANY REPRESENTATIVE ASSESS EE MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (III) OR CLAUSE (IV) OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 160 OR BY ANY PERSON ON WHOSE BEHALF OR FOR WHOSE BENEFIT ANY INC OME IS RECEIVABLE BY THE REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE (SUCH PER SON BEING HEREAFTER IN THIS SUB CLAUSE REFERRED TO AS THE BEN EFICIARY AND ANY ITA NO. 1033/MUM/2009 8 SUM PAID BY THE REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ANY OBLIGATION WHICH BUT FOR SUCH PAYMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN PAYABLE BY THE BENEFICIARY 18. FROM A COMBINED READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE TDS BORNE BY THE RESIDE NT INDIAN PAYER IS TO BE DEEMED AS THE INCOME OF THE RECIPIENT AND IT IS ONLY OUT SUCH INCOME OF THE RECIPIENT THE INDIAN PAYER IS DEEMED TO WIT HHOLD THE TDS AT THE APPROPRIATE RATES AND PAY TO THE GOVERNMENT. THEREF ORE WHAT THE INDIAN PAYER DEPOSITS TO THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE CONSTRUE D AS TAX OF THE NON- RESIDENT BEING BORNE BY THE INDIAN RESIDENT PAYER BUT THE AMOUNT PAID IS ONLY OUT OF THE DEEMED INCOME OF THE RECIPIENT. THEREFORE WE ALLOW THE ASSESSES APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE AND DELETE THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 4 71 491/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. TATA ELXSI AS REIMBURS EMENT OF THE WITHHOLDING TAX PAID BY THE LATTER. 19. THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE IT IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 20. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF MARCH 2011 SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 31 ST MARCH 2011 RJ ITA NO. 1033/MUM/2009 9 COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR A BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T MUMBAI ITA NO. 1033/MUM/2009 10 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 2 4 .0 3 .2011 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 2 5 .0 3 .2011 ______ SR. PS/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. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR _________ ______ 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______