M/S. BROAD BAND SOLUTION PVT. LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH RELIANCE ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD), MUMBAI v. THE ITO WD 6(1)4, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN(J.M) & SHRI J.SUDHAKAR R EDDY(A.M) ITA NO.1538/MUM/08(A.Y. 2001-02) M/S. BROAD BAND SOLUTION PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH RELIANCE ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.) 5 TH FLOOR NKM INTERNATIONAL HOUSE BABUBHAI CHINAI ROAD MUMBAI 20. PAN:AAACR 4076J (APPELLANT) VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1)4 AAYKAR HAVAN MK ROAD MUMBAI. 20. (RESPONDENT0 APPELLANT BY : SHRI ARVIND V. SONDE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARI GOVIND SINGH ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN J.M THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 14/12/2007 OF CIT(A)-III MUMBAI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 001-02. GROUND NO.1 WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 2. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS FOLL OWS: THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1)4 MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS AO) IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLAN T HAS NOT COMMENCED AND THEREFORE CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF REVENUE EXPENSES BY TREATING THE EXPENSES AS CAPITAL IN NAT URE. THE APPELLATE SUBMITS THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION IT HAS COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS AND THE EXPENSES INCURRED AF TER THE COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS A REV ENUE EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED. ITA NO.1538/MUM/08(A.Y. 2001-02) 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF PROVIDING WEB HOSTING SERVICES MANAGED SERVICES RELATED TO HOSTI NG NET WORK MONITORING SERVICES AND INTERNET CONNECTIVITY SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE WAS INCORPORATED ON 29/12/1999. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THE AS SESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A LOSS OF RS. 1 34 75 108/-. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED A LOSS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF RS.1 30 14 1 69/-. THE ASSESSEE EARNED INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 35 39 061. AFTER SET TING OFF THE LOSS FROM BUSINESS AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE AS SESSEE FIELD A RETURN SHOWING LOSS OF RS. 1 34 75 108/-. ON PERUSAL OF THE P&L ACCOUNT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE LOSS UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS HAD ARISEN BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DEBITED ALL REVENUE EXPENSES INCURRED FROM 1/3/2001 IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. IN THIS REGARD THE AS SESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE WAS NO RECEIPT/INCOME FROM BUSIN ESS OPERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS OPERATIONS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND T HEREFORE ALL EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT HAD TO BE TREATED AS PRE -OPERATIONAL EXPENSES AND WERE REQUIRED TO BE CAPITALIZED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT INTEREST INCOME TO TAX AFTER ALLOWING 10% O F EXPENSES INCURRED TO EARN INTEREST INCOME. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBM ITTED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT THE BUSINESS WAS SET UP AS ON 1/3/ 2001. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE IT WAS READY TO RUN THE SERVICES TO THE EN D USERS. JUST BECAUSE THERE WERE NO REVENUE RECEIPTS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CUSTOMER TO WHOM SERVICES COULD BE PROVIDED IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT SET UP ITS BUSINESS. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT REVENUE EXPENSES INCURRED AFTER A BUSINESS IS SET UP HAS TO BE ALLOW ED AS A DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD RELIED ON THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH ITA NO.1538/MUM/08(A.Y. 2001-02) 3 COURT IN THE CASE OF WESTERN INDIA VEGETABLE PRODUC TS LTD. 26 ITR 51(BOM) WHEREIN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT EXPLAINED THA T IN THE CASE OF A BUSINESS NEWLY SET UP THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHALL BE TH E PERIOD BEGINNING WITH THE DATE OF SET UP OF THE BUSINESS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE DATE ON WHICH THE BUSINESS IS SET UP COULD BE DIFFERENT FRO M THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMMENCES ITS BUSINESS. 5. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HELD AS FOLLOWS: 8. I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE DETAILS WRITTEN SUBMISSION A VAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCES RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THE EVIDENCES RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IN THE FORM OF CERTIFICATE FROM CONSULTING ENGINEER LETTER FROM LARSEN & TOUBRO LT D. AND FINALLY BILL OF WIPRO LTD. GO TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TECHNICAL SET U P REQUIRED FOR UNDERTAKING THE BUSINESS HAD BEEN COMPLETED. I HOW EVER HASTEN TO ADD THAT MERE TECHNICAL SET UP IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE TECHNICAL SET UP IS READY TO COMMENCE BUSINESS. TE CHNICAL SET UP REQUIRES A TESTING. AND AS LONG AS THAT TEST CONT INUES IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE SET UP IS READY TO COMMENCE BUSI NESS. THIS TESTING IS FREQUENTLY UNDERTAKEN IN THE FORM OF WHA T IS TECHNICALLY KNOW AS TRIAL RUN. THE POSITION IN THE INSTANT C ASE IS AS UNDER AND I REPRODUCE FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED WITH TH E APPEAL. GROUND NO.2: COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS: DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE APPELLANT HAS COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS BY PROVIDING COLLOCATION SER VICES TO M/S. SSKI INVESTOR SERVICES PVT. LTD. BUT NO REVENU E WAS GENERATED SINCE THE SERVICE WERE PROVIDED ON TRIAL BASIS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ORDER HAS CONTE NDED THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN ANY RECEIPT/INCOM E BY WAY OF BUSINESS OPERATION THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT HA S NOT COMMENCED. 9. IT IS EVIDENT FROM ABOVE THAT WHAT APPELLANT IS CLAIMING TO BE COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS IS ONLY TRIAL RUN OF THE S ERVICES THAT APPELLANT PROPOSED TO PROVIDE. DURING THE TRIAL RU N IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SET UP IS READY TO COMMENCE THE BUSINESS. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE OF NO USE SINCE I N THE FACTS OF THOSE CASES TRIAL RUN WAS NEVER AN ISSUE BEFORE THE HONB LE COURT. IN THE ITA NO.1538/MUM/08(A.Y. 2001-02) 4 FACTS OF THE CASE THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE HELD THA T SET UP OF APPELLANT WAS COMPLETE IN THE SENSE OF BEING READY TO COMMENC E BUSINESS. IN SUCH A SITUATION DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED. THE DISALLOWANCE OF REVENUE EXPENSES DURING THE TR IAL PERIOD AND THEIR CAPITALIZATION IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSE E HAS RAISED GROUND NO.2 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION. THE ASSESSE E WAS INCORPORATED ON 29/12/1999. ON SEPTEMBER 5 TH 2000 THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED A LICENCE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FOR PROVIDI NG INTERNET SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER STARTED DEVELOPING ITS BUSI NESS FACILITIES. IT PURCHASED VARIOUS EQUIPMENTS/MACHINERY FOR PROVIDIN G INTERNET BASED SERVICES. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED B ILLS WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE 71 TO 141 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THESE BILLS ARE PRIOR TO THE PERIOD OF 23/01/2001. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RECEIVED FINAL B ILL FROM R.H.RANGWALA CONSULTING ENGINEER DATED 23/2/2001. THIS BILL CE RTIFIES THAT THE ENTIRE WORK HAS BEEN EXECUTED. THE ASSESSEE HAD EFFECTED SALE TO DIFFERENT PARTIES AND THE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE 25 OF THE PAP ER BOOK WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: NAME OF CUSTOMERS COLLOCATION SALES BANDWIDTH SALE S. GATEWAY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 4 933 472.00 HUGE (TELE) 9 918 800.00 SSKI INVESTOR SERVIVES 3 093 280.00 QUEST2 TRAVEL.COM 340 000.00 IRIS LTD. 882 000.00 4 315 280.00 14 852 272.00 TOTAL SALES 19 167 552.00 THESE SALES PERTAIN TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT T O A.Y. 2002-03. THE INDIVIDUAL BREAK-UP MADE OF EACH OF THE AFORESAID P ARTIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN AT ITA NO.1538/MUM/08(A.Y. 2001-02) 5 PAGE 26 TO 32 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. THUS I T IS CLEAR THAT IN A.Y 2002- 03 THE ASSESSEE HAD BOOKED SALES ALSO AND THE SALES BEGAN ON 9/4/2001. IN NOTE NO.2 TO THE NOTES FORMING PART OF THE RETURN O F INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS: THE COMPANY ENTERED INTO A LICENSE AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 5 2000 WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS (DOT ) FOR PROVISION OF INTERNET SERVICES. PURSUANT TO THE LICENSE AGRE EMENT THE COMPANY STARTED DEVELOPING THE BUSINESS FACILITIES. BSPLS BUSINESS AND THE ENTIRE FACILITY INCLUDING CONNECTIVITY WERE COMPL ETED BY MARCH 1 2001. CERTAIN CLIENTS HAD INSTALLED THEIR SERVE RS IN MARCH 2001 FOR SYSTEM COMPATIBILITY CHECK. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ALL EQUIPMENTS NECESSARY FOR S ETTING UP THE BUSINESS HAD BEEN INSTALLED AND ELECTRICAL WORK WAS ALSO COMPLET ED VIDE LETTER OF L&T LTD. DATED 21/2/2001 AND WIPRO LTD. DATE FEB. 2001. 8. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT EVEN THE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED COLLOCATION SERVICES TO M/S.SSKI INVESTMEN T SERVICES PVT. LTD. BUT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY REVENUE BECAUSE THE SERVICES WA S PROVIDED ON TRIAL BASIS. ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WHEN A TRIAL RUN TAKE PLACE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE BUSINESS IS SET UP. THE CI T(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A TECHNICAL SET UP OF THE BUSINESS B UT SUCH TECHNICAL SET UP IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RE ADY TO COMMENCE THE BUSINESS. IN OUR VIEW THIS WAS NOT A RELEVANT CONS IDERATION. IN WESTERN INDIA VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. VS. CIT 26 ITR 151(B OM) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT WHAT IS RELEVANT IS THE SETTING UP OF BUSINESS AND NOT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS THAT IS TO BE CONSIDERED. THE ITA NO.1538/MUM/08(A.Y. 2001-02) 6 DEFINITION OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AS CONTAINED IN SEC TION 3 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 READS AS FOLLOWS: 3 'PREVIOUS YEAR' DEFINED. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT 'PREVIOUS YEAR' MEANS THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR : PROVIDED THAT IN THE CASE OF A BUSINESS OR PROFESS ION NEWLY SET UP OR A SOURCES OF INCOME NEWLY COMING INTO EXISTE NCE IN THE SAID FINANCIAL YEAR THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHALL BE THE PERIOD BEGINNING WITH THE DATE OF SETTING UP OF THE BUSINE SS OR PROFESSION OR AS THE CASE MAY BE THE DATE ON WHIC H THE SOURCE OF INCOME NEWLY COMES INTO EXISTENCE AND ENDING WIT H THE SAID FINANCIAL YEAR. IT IS ON THE BASIS OF THIS DEFINITION THAT THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT IT I S THE SETTING UP OF THE BUSINESS AND NOT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS THAT IS TO BE CONSIDERED. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THA T WHEN THE BUSINESS IS ESTABLISHED AND READY TO COMMENCE THE BUSINESS THE N IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT BUSINESS ITSELF IS SET UP BUT BEFORE IT IS READY TO COMMENCE IT IS NOT SET UP. IT FURTHER HELD THAT THERE MAY BE TIME GAP IN SETTI NG UP OF THE BUSINESS AND COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS AND ALL THE EXPENSES I NCURRED DURING THAT INTERVENING PERIOD WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION. 9. THE QUESTION AS TO WHEN A BUSINESS HAS BEEN SET UP HAS TO BE ESSENTIALLY DETERMINED ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. IN CIT VS. I NDUSTRIAL SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 119 ITR 608 (BOM) THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT EVEN UNSUCCESSFUL TRAIL RUN CARRIED OUT FOR PR ODUCTION OF FINISHED PRODUCT WOULD BE THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE BUSINES S IS SET UP. IN CIT VS. FORGINGS AND STAMPINGS PVT.LTD. 119 ITR 616(BOM) IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT WHEN RAW MATERIAL NE CESSARY FOR PRODUCTION WAS PROCURED THAT WOULD BE THE DATE WHEN THE BUSINESS IS SET UP. IN BHODILAL MENGHRAJ AND CO. PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 119 ITR 968 (BOM) IT WAS ITA NO.1538/MUM/08(A.Y. 2001-02) 7 HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT WHEN ELE CTRICITY BOARD GIVES POWER CONNECTION THE BUSINESS IS SET UP. IN CIT V S. HUGHES ESCORTS COMMUNICATIONS LTD. 311 ITR 253 (DEL) THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT THE BUSINESS OF SATELLITE BUSINESS COMMUNICATION CAN BE CONSIDERED AS SET UP WHEN THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR EQUIPMENTS NECESSARY TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS ARE PLACED IN JULY 1994 THOUGH THE INSTALLATION O F THE EQUIPMENTS WERE COMPLETED ONLY IN MARCH 1995. 10. ON THE FACTS AS BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE PROPERTY TO CONSIDER THE BUSINESS AS HAVIN G BEEN SET UP ON 1/3/2001 WHEN TRIAL RUNS WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE AS SESSEE AND THIS WOULD BE THE RELEVANT DATE FROM WHICH ALL REVENUE EXPENS ES HAVE TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS WOULD NOT BE MATERIAL AND THE FACT THAT THE REVENUE STARTED FLOWING TO TH E ASSESSEE ONLY IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS AGAIN NOT RELEVANT. WE ALSO DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF LD. D.R THAT THE ASSESSE ES CLAIM OF HAVING SET UP THE BUSINESS AS ON 1/3/2001 IS ONLY SELF-SERVING CL AIM. THE DOCUMENTS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT TH E BUSINESS WAS SET UP AS ON 1/3/ 2001. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION FOR REVENUE EXPENSES ON OR AFTER 1/3/ 2001 HAS TO B E ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: - 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DECISION OF AO IN TAXING THE GROSS INTEREST OF RS.35 39 065/- AS INCOME WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THAT PERIOD. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND W ITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.2 THE AO SHOULD HAVE NETTED OFF THE INTE REST INCOME BY THE EXPENSES. ITA NO.1538/MUM/08(A.Y. 2001-02) 8 12. THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST TAXING T HE GROSS INTEREST OF RS. 35 39 065/- AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE INTEREST INCOME AROSE OUT O F DEPLOYMENT OF SURPLUS FUNDS WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE AO THEREFORE TREATED THE INTEREST INCOME AS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INTEREST INCOME HAS TO BE ASSE SSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLO WED 10% OF EXPENSES AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME AND TAXED ONLY BALANCE INTEREST INCOME TO RS. 31 85 159/-. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE A O FOR THE REASON THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED SINC E GIVING OF LOANS AND ADVANCE IS NOT A BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE. TH EREFORE THE INTEREST EARNED DOES NOT HAVE THE CHARACTER OF BUSINESS. 13. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCO ME. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE IS CORRECT AND CALLS FOR NO INTERFERENCE. ADMITTEDLY SURPLUS FUNDS WERE DEPLOYED AND INTEREST INCOME EARNED. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF EARNING INTEREST INCOME ON LOANS/INVESTMENTS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CORRECT AND THEREFO RE WE UPHOLD HIS ORDER ON THE ISSUE. GROUND NO.2 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 25 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED. 25 TH FEB.2011 ITA NO.1538/MUM/08(A.Y. 2001-02) 9 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.RE BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR I TAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM. ITA NO.1538/MUM/08(A.Y. 2001-02) 10 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 15/2/11 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 17/2/11 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 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER