SEJAL ARCHITECTURAL GLASS LTD, MUMBAI v. DCIT 9(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1661/MUM/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 166119914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AADCS8659M
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 1661/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant SEJAL ARCHITECTURAL GLASS LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT 9(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 23-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 19-09-2011
Next Hearing Date 19-09-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 03-03-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN(J.M) & SHRI T.R.SOOD (A. M) ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) M/S. SEJAL ARCHITECTURAL GLASS LTD. 201/202 ABHILASHA 2 ND FLOOR S.V.ROAD KANDIVLI (W) MUMBAI 400 067. PAN: AADCS8659M (APPELLANT) VS. THE DCIT 9(3) AAYKAR BHAVAN MK ROAD MUMBAI 20 (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI REEPAL TRASHAWALA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C.P. TRIVEDI DATE OF HEARING : 19/09/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : /09/2011 ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN J.M THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 5/1/2010 OF CIT(A) 20 MUMBAI RELATING TO A.Y 2006-07. 2. THE GROUND NO.A RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS F OLLOWS A) DISALLOWANCE OF PART DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOW ANCE IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB OF THE ACT ON THE AGGREGATE AM OUNT OF RS. 1 07 05 561/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT MOST THE AM OUNTS FALLING UNDER THE HEAD OTHER INCOME WERE INCOME DIRECTLY D ERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 80 IB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE VARIOUS ITEMS FALLING UNDER T HE HEAD OTHER INCOME IS UNJUSTIFIED AND MAY BE DELETED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT MER ELY BECAUSE THE AMOUNTS WERE SEGREGATED AND REFERRED UNDER THE HEAD ING OTHER ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 2 INCOME DID NOT LEAD TO CONCLUSION THAT THE SAME HA S NOT BEEN DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND HENCE THE DISA LLOWANCE OF PART DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 80 IB OF THE ACT IS UNJUSTIF IED AND MAY BE DELETED. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF GLASS. THE ASSESSEE WAS EN TITLED TO A DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME A DEDUCTION OF THE INC OME DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING VIZ. MANUFACTURE OF GLASS. THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORIT IES IN NOT CONSIDERING OTHER INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.1 07 05 561 FOR DEDU CTION U/S 8OLB OF THE ACT. THE AFORESAID AMOUNT COMPRISES OF THE FOLLOWIN G SUMS: INSURANCE RECEIPT- SALES 358 577 OCTROI RECEIPTS 539 399 INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIVED 1 486 649 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME 96 594 GAIN DUE TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE DIFFERENCE 653 804 CASH DISCOUNT RECEIVED 266 125 SUNDRY ADVANCES W/BACK 1 926 135 SUNDRY CREDIT BALANCES W/BACK 1 383 326 ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES 3 600 000 INTEREST ON TRADE DEPOSIT 32 000 INTEREST ON MARGIN MONEY 172 593 INTEREST ON INTER CORPORATE DEPOSIT 146 436 INTEREST ON BILL OF EXCHANGE 17 045 DIVIDEND ON SHARES ___20 000 1 07 05 561 4. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ABOVE RECEIPTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING DI D NOT EMANATE DIRECTLY FROM THE ACTIVITY OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ELI GIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 8OLB ALTHOUGH THEY MAY BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS ACT IVITY. HE HELD THAT IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S.8OLB THE INCO ME SHOULD ARISE DIRECTLY ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 3 FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. HE THEREFORE RES TRICTED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80LB EXCLUDING OTHER INCOME OF RS. 1 07 05 561 FROM THE INCOME OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. 5. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) WAS OF TH E VIEW THAT OTHER INCOME OR INCIDENTAL INCOME OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING I S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 801B. IN COMING TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION THE CIT (A) REFERRED AND RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS VIZ. CIT V. STERLING FOODS 237 ITR 579 (SC) AND CIT V. PANDIAN CHEMICALS LTD 233 ITR 497 (SC) WHICH WERE FOLLOWED BY THE APEX COURT IN LIBERTY INDIA VS CIT [2009] 317 ITR 2 18 (SC). THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE LAST CITED CASE HAD OBSERVED THAT THE BASIC SCHEME OF SECTIONS 801 80-IA AND 80 -LB REMAINED THE SAME; WHEN SECTION 80-IA/80-LB REFERS TO PROFITS DERIVED FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IT IS NOT THE OWNERSHIP OF THAT BUSINESS WHICH ATTRACT S THE DEDUCTION BUT THE GENERATION OF PROFITS (OPERATIONAL PROFITS); THIS I S THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORDS DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS AGAINST P ROFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. HE HELD THAT THE NATURE O F EACH RECEIPT WHICH THE AO HAS EXCLUDED FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 801B CL EARLY SHOWED THAT THEY COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS GENERATED FROM THE OP ERATIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OR IN OTHER WORDS THE IMMEDIATE SOUR CE IN RESPECT OF EACH RECEIPT IS NOT THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OR THE RE CEIPT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE OPERATIONAL PROFITS OF THE UNDERTAKING. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE WILL DE AL WITH THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS OF INCOME WHICH WERE HELD BY THE CIT(A) TO BE NOT INCOME DERIVED FROM ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 4 THE BUSINESS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING FOR COMPUT ING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB OF THE ACT. (I) INSURANCE RECEIPT:- ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE SUM OF RS.3 58 577 WAS INSURANCE IS IN FACT PART AND PARCEL OF THE SAL ES OF ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THE STAND OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT WHEN IT SELLS ITS PRODUCT THE SAME INCLUDES THE COS T OF THE GLASS AS WELL AS THE INSURANCE ON THE GLASS SOLD TO THE CUSTOMERS. THE CUSTOMER PAYS THE COST OF THE GLASS PLUS THE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID B Y THE ASSESSEE AND FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES ASSESSEE SHOWS INSURANCE RECEIP TS SEPARATELY. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THIS ALSO IS PART OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF GLASS AND ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB OF THE A CT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE AMOUNT IS CREDITED TO THIS SEPARATE ACCOUN T INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING THE SAME AS PART OF ACTUAL SALES VALUE SINCE THE SA ME ARE SEPARATELY CHARGED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS RECEIPT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND HENCE DEDUCTION RIGHTLY CLAIMED U/S.8OLB OF THE ACT AND THE SAME MAY BE ALLOWED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS NOT INCOME AS SUCH BUT MERELY RECOUPMENT OF THE COST THAT THE APPELLANT INCURRED ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMERS AND T HUS ENTITLED TO RELIEF U/S.801B OF THE ACT. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE S TAND OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID BY THE ASS ESSEE WOULD BE SHOWN AS AN EXPENDITURE IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AND WHEN THIS EXPENSES ARE RECOUPED FROM THE CUSTOMER THE SAME IS SHOWN IN THE CREDIT S IDE OF THE P&L ACCOUNT. THUS THE INSURANCE RECEIPT CANNOT BE TREATED AS PAR T OF THE INCOME OF THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING. THE ASSESSEE IS SILENT ON CL AIMING THE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID AS EXPENSES. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT IF THE INSURANCE RECEIPTS ARE NOT TREATED AS INCOME DERIVE D FROM THE UNDERTAKING THE CORRESPONDING DEBIT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT SHOULD BE IGNORED WHICH WILL GO TO INCREASE THE PROFITS FROM THE INDU STRIAL UNDERTAKING. IN ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 5 SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. (II) OCTROI RECEIPTS: THE ASSESSEEE CLAIMED THAT A SUM OF RS.5 39 399 WAS CHARGED TO THE CUSTOMERS TOWARDS OCTROI AND WAS PAR T AND PARCEL OF THE SALES INVOICE RAISED ON THE CUSTOMERS. IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS WAS VERY MUCH RELATED TO THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT UPON TRANSIT OF GLASS ARTICLE S TO THE CUSTOMERS WHATEVER OCTROI IS CHARGED OR PAID THE SAME IS REC OVERED FROM THE CUSTOMERS AND HENCE IS SEPARATELY SHOWN IN THE SALE INVOICE HOWEVER THE SAME IS SHOWN IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT AND NOT AS PART OF THE SALES VALUE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS RECEIPT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO TH E MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND HENCE DEDUCTION RIGHTLY CLAIMED U/S.801B OF THE AC T AND THE SAME MAY BE ALLOWED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THI S IS NOT INCOME AS SUCH BUT MERELY RECOUPMENT OF THE COST THAT THE APPELLAN T INCURRED ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMERS AND THUS ENTITLED TO RELIEF U/S.801B OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT OCTROI RECEIPTS ALSO STAND ON THE SAME FO OTINGS AS THAT OF INSURANCE RECEIPTS DISCUSSED IN (I) ABOVE. IN RESPECT OF BOT H (I) & (II) THERE CANNOT BE ANY ELEMENT OF INCOME. EVEN ASSUMING THE ASSESSEE EARNED INCOME ON THE ABOVE TWO ACTIVITIES IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INC OME DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF GLASS ARTICLE S. (III) INSURANCE CLAIM OF RS.14 86 649 IS STATED TO BE THE SUM RECEIVED FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY AGAINST THE CLAIMS LODGED BY IT IN RESPECT OF THE BREAKAGES/DAMAGES THAT OCCUR WHILE THE GOODS ARE IN TRANSIT EITHER ON PURCHASE ACCOUNT OR ON SALE ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE S UBMITS THAT INSURANCE RECEIVED/RECEIVABLE IS DEFINITELY PART & PARCEL OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE UNDERTAKING AND HAS DIRECT BEARING ON THE INCOME OF THE UNDERTAKING. ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 6 WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE A MOUNTS RECEIVED AGAINST BREAKAGES/DAMAGES WOULD GO TO REDUCE THE COST OF PU RCHASES OF MANUFACTURING OF THE GLASS ARTICLES AND. HENCE HA S DIRECT CONNECTION WITH THE INCOME OF THE UNDERTAKING AND HENCE THE SAME W OULD FORM PART OF ELIGIBLE PROFITS OF THE UNDERTAKING AND THUS THE D EDUCTION OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. AS FAR AS INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGE OF THE GOODS IN TRANSIT HAS TO BE CONSIDERE D AS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PFIZER LTD. 330 ITR 62 (BOM) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SPORTING IN DIA LTD. 324 ITR 283 HAVE TAKEN THE VIEW THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM INSURANCE COMPANY FOR LOSS OF GOODS HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME ELIGIBLE FOR D EDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IA/(80 HHC) OF THE ACT. FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISIO N THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. (IV) MISCELLANEOUS INCOME OF RS.96 594 IS IN 2 PART S I.E. RS.50 000 BEING ADVANCE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMER M/S. THAKURDW AR JEWELLERS AND FORFEITED SINCE THE ORDER WAS CANCELLED BY THEM AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY PROCESSED THE ORDER AS PER THEIR SPECIFICATION / RE QUIREMENT AND HENCE THE SAME WOULD DEFINITELY BE FORMING PART OF THE INCOME OF THE UNDERTAKING. THE SECOND PART I.E. BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.46 594 WAS AM OUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON DELAYED PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTO MER M/S. S. P. FABRICATORS AND THE DELAYED PAYMENT FROM CUSTOMER I S ACTUALLY TO BE CONSIDERED AND TREATED AS PART AND PARCEL OF THE SA LES CONSIDERATION AND THUS DEDUCTION U/S.801B OF THE ACT IS ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT CREDITED TO MISCELLANEOUS INCOME OF RS.96 59 4. ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 7 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FIRST PART IS A SUM OF RS. 50 000/- BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMER S AS ADVANCE WHICH WAS FORFEITED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CANCELLATION OF T HE ORDER. THIS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSI NESS AS IT HAS NO NEXUS WITH THE PROFIT GENERATED FROM MANUFACTURE OF ARTIC LE OR THING. THE SECOND PART IS A SUM OF RS. 46 594/-. THIS REPRESENTS INT EREST ON DELAYED PAYMENTS BY CUSTOMERS. THIS HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GRINDWELL NORTON LTD. 318 ITR 172(BOM) AND THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PATELA COTGIN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 303 ITR 411(P&H) SUPPORTS THE PLEA O F THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH INCOME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS PA RTLY ACCEPTED. (V) GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE DIFFERENCE OF RS.6 53 804 IS STATED TO BE COMPRISING OF SMALL PETTY AMOUNTS RECEIVED/RE CEIVABLE FROM THE CUSTOMERS OR PAID/PAYABLE TO THE PARTIES ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION IN THE CURRENCY EITHER WHILE MAKING ACT UAL PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASES OR ON ACTUAL RECEIPT FROM THE CUSTOMERS O N SALES MADE TO THEM. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE AMOUNT IS DIRECTLY RE LATED TO THE EARNING OF THE INCOME OF THE UNDERTAKING AND PART AND PARCEL O F THE SALES PROCEEDS AND / OR REDUCTION IN PURCHASE PRICE OF GLASS AND HENCE THE DEDUCTION U/S.8OLB IS ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID AMOUNT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS WOULD BE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING BEING PART OF THE SALE PROC EEDS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAMPER INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD. 326 ITR 455(BOM) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THEY ARE PART OF SALE PROC EEDS AND HAVE TO BE ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 8 CONSIDERED AS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSI NESS. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION. (VI) CASH DISCOUNT RECEIVED OF RS.2 66 125 IS ON PU RCHASES FROM ONE OF THE SUPPLIERS M/S. ASAHI INDIA LIMITED AND SINCE THE AS SESSEE MADE EARLY PAYMENT TO THE SAID PARTY DISCOUNT WAS RECEIVED W HICH IN EFFECT WOULD GO TO REDUCE THE PURCHASE COST OF THE ASSESSEE AND HEN CE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.8OLB OF THE ACT. CASH DISCOUNT RECEIVED IS ALSO INCOME DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AS THEY WOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF REDUCTI ON IN THE COST OF GOODS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IS THEREFORE DIRECTE D TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION IN THIS REGARD AS CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE. (VII) SUNDRY ADVANCES WRITTEN BACK OF RS.19 26 135 IS THE AGGREGATE OF VARIOUS AMOUNTS RECEIVED AS ADVANCE FROM VARIOUS CU STOMERS AGAINST ORDERS FOR PURCHASE OF GLASS MANUFACTURED BY IT BUT LATER CANCELLED BY THE CUSTOMERS WHEREUPON THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT REFUND TH E ADVANCE AMOUNT. HENCE THE WRITE BACK OF ADVANCES RECEIVED IS CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE PART AND PARCEL OF THE ACTIVITY OF THE UNDERTAKING AND HENCE THE DEDUCTION IS RIGHTLY CLAIMED ULS.8OLB OF THE ACT AND THE SAME OU GHT TO BE ALLOWED. IN OTHER WORDS IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE ADVANCES WRITT EN BACK COULD BE TREATED AND CONSIDERED AS PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION SINCE TO THAT EXTENT IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD THE GOODS. (VIII) SUNDRY CREDIT BALANCES WRITTEN BACK OF RS.13 83 326 REPRESENT THE CREDITS ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS SUPPLIERS AS A RESULT OF SHORT PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM FOR QUALITY ISSUES ETC. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE ARE ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 9 DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING AND IN FACT WOULD GO TO REDUCE THE COST OF PURCHASES OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT THE SUNDRY CREDIT BALANCES WRITTEN BAC K WOULD FORM PART AND PARCEL OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE PURP OSES OF DEDUCTION U/S.801B OF THE ACT. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ON ITEMS (VII) A ND (VIII) VIZ. SUNDRY ADVANCES WRITTEN BACK AND SUNDRY CREDIT BALA NCES WRITTEN BACK. AS FAR AS ADVANCES WRITTEN BACK IS CONCERNED THEY CANN OT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AS THEY H AVE NO NEXUS WITH THE INCOME FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. IT IS WIND FALL WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INCOME FROM THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING. AS FAR AS SUNDRY CREDIT BALANCES WRITTEN BACK IS CONCERNED THEY IN THE NATU RE OF BUSINESS INCOME AND REPRESENT SHORT PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE T O ITS SUPPLIERS WHICH WOULD RESULT IN REDUCTION OF COST OF GOODS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THEY HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME DERIVED FROM T HE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. THUS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON ITEM (VIII) IS AL LOWED. (IX) ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES OF RS.36 00 000 IS CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN THE NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND INCURRED ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER GR OUP CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT M/S. SEJAL FLOAT GLASS LTD. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE OTHER GROUP CONCERN HAS BEEN USING THE ADMINISTRATIVE FAC ILITIES AND OTHER SERVICES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE A MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING I S ARRIVED AT FOR CHARGING LUMP SUM AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF THE UTILIZATION OF VA RIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TH AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES RECOVERED FROM THE GROUP CONCERN IS BASICAL LY IN THE FORM OF REIMBURSEMENT OF THE VARIOUS EXPENSES INCURRED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND HENCE WOULD GO TO REDUCE THE OVERALL EXPENSES OF THE APPE LLANT AND THEREBY INCREASE THE PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING. T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 10 THE AMOUNT RECOVERED FROM THE GROUP CONCERN IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE BUSINESS PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UL S.801B OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION ACCORDINGLY. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS REIMBURSEME NT OF EXPENSES BY THE GROUP CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE GROUP CONCERN. IN OUR VIEW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO AFRESH. FOR THIS PURPOSE THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE AO. IF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE GROUP CONCERN IS DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT THE N TO THAT EXTENT THE DEBIT TO THE P&L ACCOUNT HAS TO BE REMOVED WHICH W ILL RESULT IN INCREASE IN INCOME OF THE ELIGIBLE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. IF ON VERIFICATION THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF DEBIT OF THE IMPUGNED EXPENSES TO T HE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT THEN THE AO WILL ALLOW APPRO PRIATE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. (X) INTEREST OF RS.32 000 ON TRADE DEPOSITS REPRESE NTS INTEREST ON SECURITY DEPOSIT WITH TWO OF ITS MAIN SUPPLIERS OF RAW MATER IAL I.E. MIS. ASAHI INDIA LTD. & MIS. SAINT GOBAIN. THE DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN TA KEN BY THE SUPPLIERS FOR SECURITY OF THE RAW MATERIAL SUPPLIED AS ALSO TIMEL Y PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM IN RESPECT OF THE RAW MATERIAL SUPPLIED. THE ASSESS EE SUBMITS THAT IT HAS RECEIVED INTEREST ON THE DEPOSITS SO MADE WITH THE SUPPLIERS AND THIS WOULD THUS GO TO REDUCE THE PURCHASE COST OF THE RAW MATE RIALS SINCE THE SECURITY DEPOSIT IS GIVEN TO THE SUPPLIERS OF THE RAW MATERI ALS. THE ASSESSEE THUS SUBMITS THAT THE SAID INCOME HAS DIRECT BEARING WIT H THE ACTIVITY OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND HENCE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 8OLB OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 11 (XI) INTEREST OF RS.1 72 593 ON MARGIN MONEY IS CLA IMED TO BE IN RELATION TO IMPORT OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WHICH IT HAD TO TAKE LE TTER OF CREDIT (LC) FACILITY FROM THE BANKS. FOR TAKING LC FACILITY THE ASSESSE E WAS REQUIRED TO PLACE MARGIN MONEY WITH THE BANKS. IT IS ON THIS MARGIN M ONEY THAT THE BANK HAS PAID INTEREST TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH ACCORDING TO T HE ASSESSEE IS NOTHING BUT ACTUALLY GOES TO REDUCE THE MANUFACTURING COST SINC E THE MARGIN MONEY IS LINKED WITH THE COST OF IMPORTS I.E. COST OF PURCHA SE OF RAW MATERIAL AND HENCE THE SAME HAS DIRECT CONNECTION WITH THE ACTI VITY OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. IN VIEW OF THE SAME THE ASSESSE CLAIM S THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON MARGIN MONEY FROM THE BANKS TOWARDS IMP ORT OF RAW MATERIAL REDUCES THE PRODUCTION COST AND HENCE ENTITLE TO D EDUCTION ULS.8OLB OF THE ACT. (XII) INTEREST OF RS.1 46 436 IS RECEIVED ON INTER- CORPORATE DEPOSIT PLACED WITH GROUP CONCERNS WITH WHICH THERE ARE BUSINESS D EALINGS AND THE SAME ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE IS PART OF THE EARNINGS R ELATED TO THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND HENCE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE U/S.8 OLB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID INCOME. ON ITEMS (X) TO (XII) ABOVE WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: INTEREST ON TRADE DEPOSITS AND INTEREST ON MARGIN MONEY CANNOT BE CON SIDERED AS INCOME DERIVED ON ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AS LAID DOWN BY THE HO NBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA 317 ITR 218(SC). FOR TH E SAME REASONS GIVEN ABOVE INTEREST ON INTER CORPORATE DEPOSITS CANNOT B E CONSIDERED AS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. (XIII) INTEREST OF RS.17 045 IS ON BILL OF EXCHANGE DRAWN ON CUSTOMERS AGAINST SALES REALIZED LATE. INTEREST IS CHARGED THEREON FO R DELAYED PAYMENT BY THE CUSTOMERS. THUS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE INTE REST IS EARNED ON ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 12 DELAYED PAYMENT FROM THE CUSTOMERS AND HENCE PART AND PARCEL OF SALE PROCEEDS AND THEREBY DEDUCTION U/S.801B IS ALLOWABL E ON THE SAID AMOUNT AND THE SAME MAY BE THEREFORE ALLOWED. INTEREST PAID BY THE CUSTOMER FOR LATE PAYMENT AS W E HAVE ALREADY HELD SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS INTEREST DERIVED FROM THE E LIGIBLE BUSINESS FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB OF THE ACT. (XIV) DIVIDEND OF RS.20 000 IS CLAIMED TO BE PART A ND PARCEL OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE REAS ON THAT AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SANCTIONING OF LOAN FROM THE BANK THE COSMOS CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD. IT IS ONE OF THE PRE-CONDITION TO PURCHASE SHARES OF THE BANK. THUS THE SHARES ARE NOT PURCHASED AS INVESTM ENT OUT OF SURPLUS FUNDS BUT THE SAME IS PURCHASED AS A BUSINESS COMP ULSION IN ORDER TO OBTAIN LOAN FACILITY FROM THE BANK. THUS THE DIVI DEND INCOME FORMS PART OF THE INCOME OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND HENCE THE SAME IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.801B OF THE ACT. (XV) OTHER INTEREST OF RS.6 403 WAS CHARGED FROM TH E ADVANCES GIVEN TO STAFF @13% AS PER THE INCOME TAX RULES. THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITS THAT THIS INTEREST IS FOR THE CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES SMO OTHLY AND EFFICIENTLY BY GIVING ADVANCES TO THE STAFF IN NEED AND AT THE SAM E TIME ALSO CHARGING INTEREST ON THE ADVANCES SO GIVEN. THE ASSESSEE THE REFORE SUBMITS THAT THIS AMOUNT IS ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.801B OF T HE ACT. (XVI) PRIOR PERIOD INCOME OF RS.475 IS BUSINESS INC OME EARNED IN THIS YEAR RELATING TO EARLIER PERIOD AND THE SAME IS BUSINESS INCOME AND HENCE DEDUCTION U/S.801B OF THE ACT ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. ON ITEMS (XIV) TO (XVI) WE HOLD THAT THE DEDU CTION U/S.80-IB OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF DIVIDEND OTHER INTEREST AND PRIOR PERIO D INCOME CANNOT BE ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 13 CONSIDERED AS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE UNDE RTAKING FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB OF THE ACT. IN OUR VIEW THE CIT(A) HAS APPLIED THE DECISION O F THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA IN A GEN ERAL WAY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS OF INCOME. THIS WAS NOT PROPER. THE NATURE OF INCOME HAD TO BE SEEN INDIVIDUALLY. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE GROUND A IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. GR. (B) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS FOLLOWS: 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITIO N OF RS. 2 50 893/- AS UNACCOUNTED SALES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DULY ACCOUNTED SALE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION BEING PART OF THE TOTAL SALES REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND HENCE THE ADDITION SUSTAINED AS UNACCO UNTED SALES OF RS. 2 50 893/- IS JUSTIFIED AND MAY BE DELETED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RE WAS NO DEFECTS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THAT THE SAME AMOUNTS AS S HOWN BY THE PURCHASER WERE ACCOUNTED IN THE APPELLANTS BOOKS O F ACCOUNT AND HENCE MERELY BECAUSE THE OTHER PARTY DEDUCTED TDS BY TREATING THE PURCHASE OF GLASS AS CONTRACT THE SAME TRANSACTION DOES NOT BECOME TWO SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS AND THUS THE ADDITION SU STAINED AS ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED SALES OF RS. 2 50 893/- IS WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 9. THE AO ON SCRUTINY OF THE ANNUAL INFORMAION REPO RT (AIR) OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE (TDS) NOTICED THAT ONE M/S.DONA BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED (DB)HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT O F RS.2 50 893/- PURPORTED TO A PAYMENT TO THE ASSESSEE AS A CONTRAC TOR. THE AO CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THIS RECEIPT AND HOW IT IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED T HAT A FIRM OF ARCHITECTS M/S.EURO ARCHITECTURAL (P) LTD. (DONA PLANATE) WAS A GROUP CONCERN OF DB. THE ASSESSEE SOLD REFLECTIVE SUPER SILVER DARK BLU E GLASS TO THEM UNDER ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 14 SALE INVOICE DATED 24.1.2006. A COPY OF THE INVOIC E TOGETHER WITH COPY OF THE LEDGER EXTRACT OF EURO ARCHITECTURAL PVT. LTD. IN T HE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO GIVEN TO THE AO. THE ACCOUNT SHOWED THAT SALES OF RS.3 67.925/- WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO DB ON 24.1.2006 THOU GH THE LEDGER ACCOUNT IS IN THE NAME OF EURO ARCHITECT (P) LTD.(DONA PLAN ATE). A PAYMENT OF RS.1 50 000/- HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M DB ON 9.1.2006 ITSLF. A FURTHER PAYMENT OF RS. 2 41 913 HAD BEEN RECEIVED ON 3.2.2006 LEAVING A BALANCE OF RS.23 988. THE ASSESSEE WROTE THIS OFF IN ITS BOOKS ON 31.3.2006. THUS THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN IT AND DB. THE AO HOWEVER HELD THAT THE FIGURE OF SALES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND IN THE AIR OF DB AND FURTHER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRANSACTION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WITH EURO ARCHITECT PVT .LTD. AND NOT WITH DB. THE AO THEREFORE ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 50 893/- A S FOUND IN THE AIR AS SALES MADE TO DB NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE A SSESSEE. 10. IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE C IT(A) ON DIRECTIONS BY THE AO THE AO OBTAINED ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF DB. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED ITS STAND THAT THE TRANSACTION REFLECTED IN THE AIR IN THE NAME OF DB AND THE TRANSACTION AS REFLEC TED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE NAME OF EURO ARCHITECT (P) LTD.(DONA PLANATE) IS ONE AND THE SAME. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER HELD AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER. THE APPELLANT IS REL YING ON THE INVOICE DT.24-01-2006 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF EURO ARCHITECTU RAL CONCEPTS PVT. LTD. FOR THE SUM OF RS.3 67 925. THE INVOICE COPY S ENT BY M/S DONA BUILDERS P LTD ON ENQUIRY IS ACTUALLY A PROFORMA INVOICE DT.01-02- 2006 ALSO ISSUED IN THE NAME OF EURO ARCHITECTURAL PVT. LTD. GIVING DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS OF THE MATERIALS OF A TOTAL VALUE OF RS.8 88 893/-. THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THEIR BOOKS ALSO REFERS TO THE PROFORMA INVOICE AND THE AMOUNT. THE APPELLANT CONT ENDS THAT IT HAS NOT RECEIVED PAYMENT FROM M/S DONA BUILDERS P LTD. HOWEVER IT IS NOT TRUE. THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S EURO ARCHITECTUR AL CONCEPTS PVT. ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 15 LTD. IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT SHOWS A CREDIT O F RS.2 41 913 VIDE CHEQUE NO.458539. SAME AMOUNT IS SHOWN DEBITED VIDE THE SAME CHEQUE NO. IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE B OOKS OF M/S DONA BUILDERS P LTD. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EXPLAINED THI S ON BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE DOCUMENTS OBTAINED FROM M/S DON A BUILDERS P LTD. IT IS SEEN THAT M/S DONA BUILDERS P LTD HAS DE BITED THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT BY A SUM OF RS.1 50 000 TOWARDS WA STAGE AGAINST THE PURCHASES MADE OF RS.3 88 893 FROM THE APPELLANT. T HIS LEFT BALANCE OF RS.2 50 893 PAYABLE TO THE APPELLANT. IT DEDUCTED T DS OF RS.8 980 ON THE SAID SUM AS PAYMENT TO CONTRACTORS AND PAID THE REMAINDER SUM OF RS.2 41 913 TO THE APPELLANT VIDE THE AFORESAID CHEQUE DULY CREDITED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS BOOKS OF COURSE IN THE ACC OUNT OF M/S. DONA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. THE IMPUGNED SUM IS THUS FOUND TO BE A PAYMENT FOR CONTRACT AND NOT FOR SUPPLY OF GOODS. OBVIOUSL Y THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RECORDED THE GROSS AMOUNT OF RS. 2 50 893/- IN THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN. THE AO HAS RIGHTLY BROUGHT THIS AMOUNT TO TAX. THE GROUND IS DISMISSED. 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSES SEE HAS RAISED GR. (B) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS. THE SAME SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO WERE REITERATED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AU THORITIES AND THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. COPY OF THE INVOICE FOR SUPPL Y OF REFLECTIVE SUPER SILVER DARK BLUE GLASS DATED 24.1.2006 SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE SUPPLIED GLASS MATERIAL WORTH RS.3 67 925 TO EURO ARCHITECT (P) LTD.(DONA PLANATE). ON ENQUIRY FROM DB THEY PRODUCED THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THEIR BOOKS. THE SAID ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT THEY HAVE RECOR DED PURCHASES WORTH RS.3 88 893 AND ANOTHER PURCHASE WORTH RS.12 000 TR EATED AS WASTAGE. THUS THE VALUE OF PURCHASES REFLECTED BY DB WAS RS. 4 00 893. DB HAS EFFECTED PAYMENT OF RS.1 50 000 ON 31.12.05 RS.2.4 1.913 ON 3.2.2006 AND MADE TDS PAYMENT OF RS.8 980. THUS THE ACCOUNT STA NDS SQUARED. IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER THE SALE VALUE TO DB IS SHOWN AT RS.3 67 925 ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 16 AFTER GIVING CREDIT FOR TWO PAYMENTS OF RS.1 50 000 ON 9.1.2006 AND RS.3 67 925 ON 24.1.2006 THE TOTAL PAYMENT RECEIVE D WAS RS.3 91 913. THE SALE VALUE WAS ONLY RS.3 67 925 BUT THE RECEIPTS WE RE RS.3 91 913 . THUS THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED EXCESS SUM OF RS.23 988 WHICH WAS WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSSESSEE. THE ACCOUNT IS THUS SQUARED IN THE BOOK S OF THE ASSSESSEE. THUS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS AND THAT OF DB IS ONLY THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OF RS.8 980. IF THIS IS ADD ED THEN THE TOTAL IN BOTH THE BOOKS WOULD BE RS.4 00 893. IT APPEARS THAT TH E ONLY DISCREPANCY IS THE DATES OF PAYMENT AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS SH OWN BY DB IN ITS BOOKS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPR IATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE AO FOR ASCERTAINING THE CORRECT DATES AS PER THE REALISATION OF THE PAY MENT THROUGH CHEQUES. THE AO WILL AFFORD THE ASSESSEE OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN ABOVE. THE GROUN D IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TH E 23RD DAY OF SEPT. 2011. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD ) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED. SEPT.2011 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.RD BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR I TAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM. ITA NO.1661/MUM/2010(A.Y. 2006-07) 17 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 19/9/11 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 20/9/11 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