Sri. BHUPENDRA SALLA, MUMBAI v. ITO - 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO.2003/MUM/07 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) INCOME TAX OFFICER 14(1)(1) 204 2 ND FLOOR EARNEST HOUSE NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI-400021. VS. SHRI BHUPENDRA SALLA 126/128 1 ST FLOOR SHEIKH MEMON STREET ZAVERI BAZAR MUMBAI-400 002 PAN AQPPS9895Q APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. ITA NO.2611/MUM/07 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) SHRI BHUPENDRA SALLA 126/128 1 ST FLOOR SHEIKH MEMON STREET ZAVERI BAZAR MUMBAI-400 002 PAN AQPPS9895Q VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 14(1)(1) 204 2 ND FLOOR EARNEST HOUSE NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI-400021. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.V. JHAVERI. REVENUE BY : SHRI S.K. SINGH. O R D E R PER SHRI D.K. AGARWAL : THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DT.6.12.2006 PASSED BY THE LD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04. 2. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DELAYED BY 30 DAYS. ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 2 - 3. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AFTER RECEIVING THE APPELLATE ORDER I SENT THE ORDER TO MY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT MR. UTTAM BHANDARI. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT AFTER DISCUSSION WI TH MR. UTTAM BHANDARI I HAD INSTRUCTED MR. UTTAM BHANDARI TO GET THE APPEAL PAPERS PREPARED. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL PAPERS WERE PREPARED AND SE NT TO ME IN THE LAST WEEK OF FEB. 2007 AS THE APPEAL WAS TO BE FILED ON OR BEFO RE 5 TH MARCH 2007. AS I AM NOT KEEPING GOOD HEALTH DUE TO SLIGHT BLOOD PRESSUR E AND DIABETES I INSTRUCTED MY SON MR. GOPAL B SALLA TO MAKE PAYMENT OF THE TR IBUNAL FEES AND SEND ALL THE PAPERS WHICH I HAD SIGNED AS PER INSTRUCTIONS T O MR. UTTAM BHANDARI SO THAT THE APPEAL COULD BE FILED BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIB UNAL. AS I AM UNABLE TO LOOK AFTER MY BUSINESS AND AS MOST OF THE TIME I AM AT H OME MY SON MR. GOPAL B SALLA HAD TO DO ALL THE WORK OF MY BUSINESS INCLUDI NG OTHER SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES. IN THE PRESSURE OF WORK THOUGH M Y SON HAD PAID THE TRIBUNAL FEES OF RS.10 000 ON 5 TH MARCH 2007 HE COULD NOT SEND THE PAPERS TO MR. UTTAM BHANDARI FOR FILING THE APPEAL ON THE SAME DA Y. THEREAFTER MY SON HAD TO GO OUT OF BOMBAY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THUS THE PAPERS HAD REMAINED WITH HIM UNATTENDED. WHEN I CAME ACROSS WITH THESE PAP ERS ON 30 TH MARCH 2007 I IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED MR.UTTAM BHANDARI AND SOUGHT HIS ADVICE. ACCORDINGLY I AM PREFERRING THIS APPLICATION TO YOUR HONOURS FO R CONDONING THE DELAY ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 3 - IN SUPPORT THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED HIS AFFIDAVIT DT .4.4.2007. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LA ND ACQUISITION VS. MST KHATIJI 167 ITR 471 (SC) AND STATE OF HARYANA VS. CHANDRA MANI & OTHERS (1996)(2) SCALE 820 (SC). IT WAS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BE CONDONED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R. DID NOT SERIOUS LY OBJECT TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. 5. HAVING CAREFULLY HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW THAT IT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT TH AT IN THE MATTER OF CONDONATION OF DELAY A LIBERAL AND PRAGMATIC VIEW S HOULD BE TAKEN. THE REASON GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE DELAY APPEAR TO BE S UFFICIENT CAUSE AND ACCORDINGLY THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 6. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL AND HIS INCOME CONSISTS OF INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES AND BUSINESS INCOME DERIVED FROM HIS PROPRIETORY CONCER N M/S. BHUPEN JEWELLERIES WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING A ND SALE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. THE RETURN WAS FILED DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2 18 460. DURING THE COURSE ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 4 - OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS INTER-ALIA OBSERV ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD RESIDENTIAL FLATS BEARIN G NO.703 AND 803 IN RUBY APARTMENTS WALKESHWAR MUMBAI STANDING IN THE NAME S OF SHRI ARVIND SALLA AND SHRI BHUPENDRA SALLA FOR AGGREGATE CONSIDERATI ON OF RS.90 00 000 BY EXECUTING DEED OF TRANSFER ON 20-02-2003. OUT OF T HIS ASSESSEES SHARE WAS RS.45 00 000 BEING OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION. A FTER INDEXING THE COST OF THE ABOVE FLATS OF RS.6 49 403 THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUT ED A NET LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.38 25 492 AND HAS CLAIMED THE SAME AS E XEMPTED BEING INVESTED IN FOUR RESIDENTIAL FLATS SUBSEQUENTLY PURCHASED FOR R S.44 90 260 IN FOUR DIFFERENT NAMES AS UNDER : NAME FLAT NO. 1. GOPAL BHUPENDRA SALLA BHUPENDRA NAVINBHAI SALLA 1203-B 2. UTPAL BHUPENDRA SALLA BHUPENDRA NAVINBHAI SALLA. 1202-B 3. BHUPENDRA SALLA GOPAL BHUPENDRA SALLA 1203-A 4. BHUPENDRA NAVINBHAI SALLA UTPAL BHUPENDRA SALLA 1202-A THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE EXE MPTION U/S.54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) IS ALLOWABLE ON THE FLATS WHICH DO NOT STAND IN HIS NAMES ESPECIALLY FOR THE FLAT AT SR. NOS.1 & 2 ABOVE. IN REPLY THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER : ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 5 - IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE AFORESAID FLATS IN PANCHSHEEL HEIGHTS FOR THE RESID ENCE OF ALL THE MEMBERS WHO WERE STAYING WITH HIM IN THE OLD RESIDE NTIAL HOUSE. ALL THE AFORESAID FLATS ARE BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY AS ONE DWELLING UNIT HAVING ONE PLACE OF WORSHIP AN D ONE KITCHEN FOR ALL OF THEM. IT MAY KINDLY BE NOTED THAT ALL THE FLATS ARE INTERCONNECTED AND ON THE SAME FLOOR OF THE BUILDING. IT MAY KINDLY B E FURTHER NOTED THAT ORIGINALLY AS PER THE SANCTIONED PLAN THESE ARE TWO FLATS HAVING TWO MAIN ENTRANCES. IT IS FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE BUILDER FOUR AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE TWO FLATS ARE INTERCONNECTED AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE AND THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMI LY ARE USING THESE TWO FLATS AS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IT IS ALSO REQUIRE D TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE OF THE OLD HOUSE IN ACQUIRING THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND THEREFOR E THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT AS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE FOUR DIFFERENT FLATS STANDING ON DIFFERENT NAMES WO ULD COMPRISE ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE. MERELY ONE KITCH EN AND ONE WORSHIP PLACE IN THE FOUR FLATS DOES NOT GOING TO DEFINE THE FOUR FL ATS AS A ONE UNIT ONLY. THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER THINGS ALSO THAT IDENTIFIES THE A BOVE FOUR RESIDENTIAL FLATS ARE SEPARATE UNITS AND NOT ONE UNIT FEW OF THEM ARE AS UNDER : I) FOUR SEPARATE AGREEMENTS ARE MADE BY THE BUILDER ON FOUR DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS OF THE NAMES. II) THE ELECTRICAL BILLS ARE SEPARATE FOR EACH FLAT. III) SOCIETIES RECEIPT FOR MAINTENANCE CHARGES ARE SEPAR ATE FOR EACH FLAT. ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 6 - IV) PLANS ATTACHED WITH EACH AGREEMENT INDICATE EACH UN IT AS A SEPARATE UNIT. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT T HE ASSESSEES CONTENTION TO DEFINE THE FOUR FLATS AS A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPORT OF HIS VIEWS HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT WHEREIN ACCOUNTING TO HIM NOWHERE THE WORD HOUSES IS PROV IDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF K.C. KAUSHIK VS. P.B. RANE ITO (1990) 185 ITR 499 (BOM) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED MORE THAN ONE HOUSE THEN HE CAN CLAIM RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ONE HOUSE PROVIDED HE SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS SPEC IFIED IN SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED EXEMPTIO N U/S. 54 OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF VALUE OF ONE FLAT ONLY AND HE DID NOT ALL OW THE SAID EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF OTHER FLATS AND TAXED THE SAME UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS.27 02 927 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.11.2 005 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 7. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE WHIL E REITERATING THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER RELIED ON CERTAIN DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE AND ALSO FILED AFF IDAVITS OF BOTH OF HIS SONS INTER-ALIA STATED ON OATH THAT ALL THE FLATS CONSTI TUTE ONE SINGLE DWELLING UNIT AND ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 7 - HAS ONLY ONE PLACE OF WORSHIP COMMON KITCHEN AND O NE MAIN ENTRANCE IN THE SAID FLAT. ALL THE FLATS ARE INTERCONNECTED AND LO CATED ON THE SAME FLOOR OF THE BUILDING. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THEY DO NOT H AVE ANY RIGHT TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE AFORESAID FLATS AND THEIR FATHER SRI BHUPENDRA SALLA IS THE FULL OWNER THEREOF AS HE HAS CONTRIBUTED ENTIRE CONSIDERATION FOR ACQU IRING THE SAID PREMISES. HOWEVER THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP REQUIRES TO BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF FLAT AND NOT IN THE LIGHT O F ANY DOCUMENTS SUBSEQUENTLY PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD OBSERVED AND HELD THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE PURCHASE DEED IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED R ESIDENTIAL FLAT ALONG WITH HIS SONS AND THEREFORE 50% OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN TH E NAME OF THE SONS IS TO BE TREATED AS IMPLIED GIFT IN FAVOUR OF THE SONS WHO J OINTLY WITH THE APPELLANT BECAME CO-OWNERS OF THE FOUR FLATS. FURTHER ALL THE FOUR FLATS WERE LOCATED ON THE SAME FLOOR AND INTERCONNECTED AND AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THEY WERE NOT BEIN G USED COMMONLY ACCORDINGLY HE ACCEPTED THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT ALL THE FOUR FLATS CONSTITUTE ONE SINGLE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. HOWEVER HE ALLOWED THE BENEFIT TO THE EXTENT OF INVESTMENT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. RS.22 4 5 130 (50% OF RS.44 90 260). ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 8 - 8. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE BOTH ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.2611/MUM/07 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 9. ALL THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AR E AGAINST THE DENIAL OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE I.E. FILING OF AFF IDAVITS OF SONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE DENIAL OF FULL EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AS AGAINST 50% ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 10. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE REITERATING THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS SUBMITTED BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SOLD RESIDENTIAL FLATS AT RUBY APARTMENTS 253 WALKESHWAR ROAD MUMBAI FOR R S.45 LAKHS BY EXECUTING THE DEED OF TRANSFER DT.20.02.2003. HE F URTHER SUBMITS THAT BY ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT ON 28.01.2003 THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED FOUR FLATS BEARING NOS.1202A 1202B 1203A & 1203B AT KANDIVAL I (W) FOR RS.44 90 260. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT EACH OF THE AFORESAID FLATS ARE ADMEASURING 392 SQ. FT. CARPET AREA AND ALL THE SAI D FLATS ARE SITUATED ON THE SAME FLOOR I.E. 12 TH FLOOR AND ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER. IT IS FOR THE SA KE OF CONVENIENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED TO ENTER INTO THE AGREEMEN TS WITH THE BUILDER IN HIS NAME ALONG WITH THE NAMES OF HIS TWO SONS AS UNDER : ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 9 - NAME FLAT NO. 1. MR. BHUPENDRA N SALLA AND MR. UTPAL BHUPENDRA SALLA. 1202-A 2. MR.UTPAL BHUPENDRA SALLA AND MR. BHUPENDRA N SALLA. 1202-B 3. MR. BHUPENDRA N SALLA AND MR. GOPAL BHUPENDRA SALLA 1203-A 4. MR. GOPAL BHUPENDRA SALLA AND MR. BHUPENDRA N. SALLA 1203-B HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE AFORESAID FLATS IN PANCHASHEEL HEIGHTS KANDIVALI (WEST) FOR THE RESID ENCE OF ALL THE MEMBERS WHO WERE STAYING IN THE OLD RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. ALL THE FLATS ARE BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY AS ONE DWELL ING UNIT HAVING ONE PLACE OF WORSHIP AND ONE KITCHEN FOR ALL OF THEM. HE FUR THER SUBMITS THAT ALL THE FLATS ARE INTERCONNECTED AND ON THE SAME FLOOR OF THE BUI LDING AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE AND THE FAMILY MEMBERS ARE USING THESE FLA T AS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HE FURTHER SUBMIT S THAT ASSESSEES BOTH SONS NAMELY GOPAL BHUPENDRA SALLA AND UTPAL BHUPENDRA SA LLA HAVE FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE AFFIDAVITS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHE REIN THEY HAD CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE FLATS PURCHASED IN THE PANCHASHEEL HEIGHTS BUILDING WHICH BELONGING TO THEIR FATHER AND THEIR NAMES ARE ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS RECORDED THAT ALL THE ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 10 - FLATS WERE LOCATED ON THE SAME FLOOR AND INTERCONNE CTED AND AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THEY WERE NOT BEING USED COMMONLY I AM INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE APPELLANTS C LAIM THAT ALL THE FOUR FLATS CONSTITUTE ONE SINGLE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) HE SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING ONLY 50% OF THE DEDUCTION AS AGAINST FULL DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE FOLLOWIN G DECISIONS : I) ITO VS. MS. SUSHILA M. JHAVERI (14 SOT 394) (MUM) ( SB); (2007) 107 ITD 327 (MUM)(SB) II) ACIT VS. LEELA P. NANDA (102 ITD 281) (MUM) III) ITO VS. SARASWATI RAMANATHAN 300 ITR (AT) 410 (DEL) IV) CIT VS. D. ANANDA BASAPPA 309 ITR 329 (KAR) V) JCIT VS. ARMEDA K BHAYA (2005) 95 ITD 313 (MUM). HE THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAI NED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BE DELETED. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WHILE RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMI TS THAT AS PER SITE PLAN ATTACHED WITH AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF FLATS IN PA NCHASHEEL HEIGHTS APPEARING AT PAGE 64 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK THERE IS A COMMON PASSAGE HAVING LIFTS BETWEEN TWO FLATS AT ONE SIDE AND TWO FLATS AT ANOT HER SIDE OF THE SAME FLOOR THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MS. SUSHILA AND JHAVERI (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 11 - ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION OF ONE RESIDENTIA L UNIT ONLY. HE THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER BE RESTORED. 12. IN THE REJOINDER THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED 4 FLATS I.E. FLAT NOS.12 02A 1202B 1203A & 1203B ON THE SAME FLOOR I.E. 12 TH FLOOR OF THE APARTMENT KNOWN AS PANCHASHEEL HEIGHT S KHANDIVALI (WEST) MUMBAI WHICH ARE DESCRIBED IN TH E SITE PLAN APPEARING AT PAGE 64 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK REFERRED TO B Y THE LEARNED D.R. AT ONE SIDE OF THE FLOOR ONLY AND THERE IS NO PASSAGE OR L IFT IN BETWEEN THE SAID FLATS THEREFORE IT IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THERE IS A P ASSAGE OR LIFTS IN BETWEEN THE TWO FLATS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT THERE IS A LIFT AND PASSAGE IN BETWEEN THE ASSESSEES FLATS AT ONE SIDE AND OTHER FLATS NO S.1201A 1201B 1204A & 1204B TO THE OTHER SIDE WHICH DO NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BE DELETED. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE F IND THAT THE ASSESSEE AFTER SALE OF HIS OLD RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PURCHASED FOUR FL ATS AS FOLLOWS : ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 12 - NAME FLAT NO. 1. MR. BHUPENDRA N SALLA AND MR. UTPAL BHUPENDRA SALLA. 1202-A 2. MR.UTPAL BHUPENDRA SALLA AND MR. BHUPENDRA N SALLA. 1202-B 3. MR. BHUPENDRA N SALLA AND MR. GOPAL BHUPENDRA SALLA 1203-A 4. MR. GOPAL BHUPENDRA SALLA AND MR. BHUPENDRA N. SALLA 1203-B THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 ON THE GROUND THAT ALL THE AFORESAID FLATS ARE INTERCONNECTED ON THE SAME FLOO R OF THE BUILDING AND ARE BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS A S ONE DWELLING UNIT HAVING ONE PLACE OF WORSHIP AND ONE KITCHEN FOR ALL OF THE M THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. PER CONTRA THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THERE ARE FOUR SEPARATE AGREEMENTS WITH THE BUILDER FOUR DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS OF THE NAMES ELECTRIC BILLS ARE SEPARATE OF EACH FLAT SOCIETY RECEIPTS FOR MAINTENANCE CHARGE ARE SEPARAT E FOR EACH FLAT PLANS ATTACHED WITH EACH AGREEMENT INDICATE EACH UNIT AS SEPARATE UNIT AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 THE WORD USED IS A HOUSE AND NOT HOU SES THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ONE FLAT ON LY. 14. IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54(1) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT THE RELEVANT PORTION IS EXTRACTED HEREIN FOR CONVENIENT REFERENCE : SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) WHE RE IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDE D FAMILY THE CAPITAL ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 13 - GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITA L ASSET BEING BUILDINGS OR LANDS APPURTENANT THERETO AND BEING A RESIDENTI AL HOUSE THE INCOME OF WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGI NAL ASSET) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE PURCHASED OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTI AL HOUSE THEN INSTEAD OF THE CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE IT SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION THA T IS TO SAY 15. THE ABOVE PROVISION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN TH E CASE OF CIT & ANOTHER VS.D. ANANDA BASAPPA (2009) 309 ITR 329 (KA R) AND IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED AND HELD AT PLACITUM 5 ONWARDS AT PAGE 33 1 & 332 OF 309 ITR AS UNDER : A PLAIN READING OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT DISCLOSES THAT WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL-ASSESSEE OR HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY- SELLS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OR LANDS APPURTENANT T HERETO HE CAN INVEST CAPITAL GAINS FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TO SEEK EXEMPTION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX. SECTION 13 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSE S ACT DECLARES THAT WHENEVER THE SINGULAR IS USED FOR A WORD IT IS PER MISSIBLE TO INCLUDE THE PLURAL. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE PHRASE A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WOULD MEAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND IT DOES NOT AP PEAR TO THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING. THE EXPRESSION A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN A SENSE THAT BUILDING SHOULD BE OF RE SIDENTIAL IN NATURE AND A SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO INDICATE A SINGULAR NUMBER. THE COMBINED READING OF SECTIONS 54(1) AND 54F OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT DISCLOSES THAT A NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CAN BE S OLD THE CAPITAL GAIN OF WHICH CAN BE INVESTED IN A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TO SEEK EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAIN TAX. HOWEVER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 5 4 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT LAYS DOWN THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 14 - HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAINS TA X WHEN HE INVESTS THE CAPITAL GAIN IN PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. WHEN A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILYS RESIDENTIAL HOUS E IS SOLD THE CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD BE INVESTED FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONLY ON E RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS AN INCORRECT PROPOSITION. AFTER ALL THE HINDU UNDI VIDED FAMILY PROPERTY IS HELD BY THE MEMBERS AS JOINT TENANTS. THE MEMBER S KEEPING IN VIEW THE FUTURE NEEDS IN EVENT OF SEPARATION PURCHASE MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE BENEFIT OF EXE MPTION IS TO BE DENIED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. ON FACTS IT IS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APA RTMENTS ARE SITUATED SIDE BY SIDE. THE BUILDER HAS ALSO STATED THAT HE H AS EFFECTED MODIFICATION OF THE FLATS TO MAKE IT AS ONE UNIT BY OPENING THE DOOR IN BETWEEN TWO APART-MENTS. THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME WHEN THE INS PECTOR INSPECTED THE PREMISES THE FLATS WERE OCCUPIED BY TWO DIFFERENT TENANTS IS NOT THE GROUND TO HOLD THAT THE APARTMENT IS NOT A ONE RESI DENTIAL UNIT. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PURCHASED BOTH THE FLA TS IN ONE SINGLE SALE DEED OR COULD HAVE NARRATED THE PURCHASE OF TWO PRE MISES AS ONE UNIT IN THE SALE DEED IS NOT THE GROUND TO HOLD THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO PURCHASE THE TWO FLATS AS ONE UNIT. 16. IN ITO VS. MS. SUSHILA M. JHAVERI (2009) 107 ITD 327 (MUM) (SB) IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED AND HELD AT PAGE 341 PAR A 11 & 12 AS UNDER : 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS HELD THAT EXEMPTION UNDER SECTIONS 54 AND 54F OF THE ACT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE I N RESPECT OF ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ONLY. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHA SED MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THEN THE CHOICE WOULD BE WITH AS SESSEE TO AVAIL THE EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF EITHER OF THE HOUSES PROVID ED THE OTHER CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED. HOWEVER WHERE MORE THAN ONE UNIT A RE PURCHASED WHICH ARE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER AND ARE CONVERTED INTO O NE HOUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESIDENCE BY HAVING COMMON PASSAGE COMM ON KITCHEN ETC. THEN IT WOULD BE A CASE OF INVESTMENT IN ONE RESID ENTIAL HOUSE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO EXE MPTION. 12. COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE W E FIND THAT INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN TWO FLATS LOCATED AT DIFFERENT LOCALITI ES IN MUMBAI. ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 15 - ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN ONE HOUSE ONLY OF HER CHOICE. THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY ALLOWED EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF HOUSE WHICH PERMITTED HIGHER DEDUCTION. THEREFORE ON THE BASIS OF OPINION EXPR ESSED BY US WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE A ND RESTORE THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 17. IN JCIT VS. SMT. ARMEDA K. BHAYA THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT IN THE CONVEYANCE THE NUMBER OF PURCHASERS WAS THREE I.E. THE ASSESSEE HER MOTHER AND FATHER CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY ONE-THIRD PURCHASER. BENEFIT OF SECTION 5 4 WAS WORKED OUT ACCORDINGLY. IT HAS BEEN HELD (HEADNOTES) : SECTION 45 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 1882 GIVES IMPORTANCE TO THE RATIO OF PAYMENT MADE BY RESPECTIVE OWNERS AND REFERS TO ANY CONTRACT TO THE CONTRARY WHICH MAY BE IN EXISTENCE . AS THE FACTS EMERGED IT WAS IMPLICITLY CLEAR FROM THE CONDUCT O F THE PARTIES THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT IN EXISTENCE THAT THE FLAT WOULD B E THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE AND MOTHER AND FATHER WOULD HAVE NO RIGHT TITLE OR INTEREST THEREIN AND THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WITH EXPENSE S WOULD BE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSES SEE COULD BE TREATED AS PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY IN TERMS OF SECTION 54 . THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS PURCHASER OF THE FLAT AND THE ENTIRE A MOUNT SPENT BY HER HAD TO BE CONSIDERED TOWARDS THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID BY HER FOR THE NEW FLAT ENTITLED TO BE COMPUTED WHILE ALLOWING DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 54. 18. IN SURESH C SADARANGANI (2009) 33 SOT 428 (MU M) IN WHICH ONE OF US (JM) WAS A PARTY IT HAS BEEN HELD VIDE PARA 17 APPEARING AT PAGE 435 OF 33 SOT AS UNDER : ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 16 - 17. APPLYING THE ABOVE PROVISIONS IN THE LIGHT O F THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER FLOOR PLAN OF THE PROPERTY A DUPLEX FLAT NOS.18 B AND 19B ONE ABOVE THE OTHER AND CONNECTED WITH INTERNAL STAIRCASE HAV ING ONE KITCHEN WAS JOINTLY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE HAVI NG EQUAL OWNERSHIP AND WAS OCCUPIED BY ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE AS A SING LE DUPLEX FLAT FOR SELF OCCUPATION AND ALSO ASSESSED BY THE SOCIETY AS ONE OWNER OF THE FLATS AND WAS NOT LET OUT DURING THE YEAR HENCE THE HOUSE F ALLS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(2)(A) OF THE ACT. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED JOINTLY WITH TWO SEPARATE AGREEMENTS TO PURCHASE THE ABOVE DUPLEX FLAT HAVING TWO SEPARATE NUMBERS DOES NOT ME AN THAT THEY ARE TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS. ACCORDINGLY THE VALUE OF THE P ROPERTY IS LIABLE TO BE TAKEN AT NIL. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THE ADDIT ION OF RS.5 15 274 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. C IT(A) IS DELETED. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE ALLOWED . 19. IN K.C. KAUSHIK (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER (HEADNOTE) : THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A FLAT ON MARCH 21 1973 FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS RESIDENCE FOR RS. 49 140. ON OCTOBER 24 1979 HE SOLD THIS FLAT FOR RS. 1 25 000 AND ON THE SAME DAY PURC HASED A FLAT P FOR RS. 1 11 000. HE RESIDED IN THIS FLAT P AND SOLD THIS F LAT ON JULY 26 1980 FOR RS. 1 20 000 AND PURCHASED ANOTHER FLAT K ON THE SA ME DAY FOR RS. 1 20 000. HE RESIDED IN FLAT K AND VACATED IT ON MA Y 16 1981 ON BEING TRANSFERRED TO BARODA. FROM MAY 27 1981 TO JULY 1 1983 THIS FLAT WAS LET OUT. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1980-81 THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED THAT THE SURPLUS OF RS. 75 860 ARISING ON THE SALE OF HIS FI RST FLAT ON OCTOBER 24 1979 WAS NOT TAXABLE AS HE HAD INVESTED MORE THAN THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE PURCHASE OF FLAT K ON JULY 26 1980. FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 1980- 81 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HELD THAT THE SURPLUS WA S INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF FLAT P ON OCTOBER 24 1979 AND NOT IN THE PURCHASE OF FLAT K ON JULY 26 1980 AS CLAIMED. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 1981-82 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HELD THAT FLAT P WAS SOLD WITHIN A YEAR OF PURCHASE AND THEREFORE THE SURPLUS WAS CHARGEABLE AS SHORT -TERM CAPITAL GAINS. HE ALSO HELD THAT TO THE EXTENT THE ASSESSEE HAD AV AILED OF RELIEF UNDER SECTION 54 AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF FLAT P ON OCTOBE R 24 1979 THE COST OF ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 17 - THE FLAT WAS REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED. ON A WRIT PETI TION: IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER : HELD _ (I) THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO AVAIL OF THE RELIEF IN RES PECT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON THE SALE OF HIS FLAT IN 1979 AGAINST THE FLAT PURCHASED IN THAT YEAR AS ALSO AGAINST THE FLAT PURCHASED ON JULY 26 1980. IT HAD TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST ONE OF THE FLATS ONLY. THE ASSESSE E HAD CHOSEN TO SEEK THAT RELIEF AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF THE FLAT ON JUL Y 26 1980. IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM RELIEF UNDER THIS SECTION AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF ANY ONE OF THE FLATS; (II) THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD RE SIDED IN A FLAT FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS AND ON THE SALE OF THAT FLAT HA D PURCHASED ANOTHER ONE WITH THE INTENTION OF RESIDING IN IT. HOWEVER HE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THAT PLACE AND BECAUSE OF THIS UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTA NCE COULD NOT RESIDE IN IT FOR THE REQUIRED TIME. HE WAS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF UNDER SECTION 54. 20. WHEREAS IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HA S PURCHASED ALL THE FOUR FLATS BY ENTERING INTO FOUR AGREEMENTS DT.28.0 1.2003 BEARING NOS. 1202A 1202B 1203A & 1203B IN PANCHASHEEL HEIGHTS KANDIV ALI (WEST) MUMBAI CLAIMING THAT THE SAID FLATS ARE INTERCONNECTED AND ON THE SAME FLOOR OF THE BUILDING AND USED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY ME MBERS AS ONE DWELLING UNIT HAVING ONE PLACE OF WORSHIP AND ONE KITCHEN FOR THE M. THEREFORE THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DISTINGUISHAB LE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 21. APPLYING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54(1) IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATER IAL TO SHOW THAT ALL THE FOUR ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 18 - FLATS ARE NOT INTERCONNECTED OR THERE IS A COMMON P ASSAGE OR LIFTS IN BETWEEN THE FLATS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER FLOOR PLAN SUB MITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ALL THE FOUR FLATS ARE INTERCONNECTED ON THE SAME FLOOR HAV ING ONE PLACE OF WORSHIP AND ONE KITCHEN THEREFORE IT IS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THE SCHEME OF SECTION 54 AND ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF TH E ACT. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED JOINTLY WITH FOUR SEPARATE AGR EEMENTS WITH DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS TO PURCHASE THE ABOVE FLATS DOES NOT M EAN THAT THEY ARE SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND NOT ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. AC CORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 54 OF THE ACT IN FULL. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THEREFORE ALLOW ED. ITA NO.2003/MUM/07 (REVENUES APPEAL) : 22. GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY T HE LEARNED CIT(A) IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF TWO FLATS TR EATING THE SAME AS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. 23. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSING T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND KEEPING IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING RECORD ED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE REJECTED. 24. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITIO N OF SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY. ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 19 - 25. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 IN RESPECT OF IN VESTMENT IN ONE FLAT ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED ALV IN RESPECT OF S ECOND HOUSE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(4) OF THE ACT. THE ALV WAS COMPUTED AT RS.94 500 AND AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24 @ 30% THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY (SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY) WAS COMPUTED AT R S.66 150. ON APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT SINCE HE HAS ALREADY ACCEP TED THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT ALL THE FOUR FLATS WERE USED AS ONE HOUSE DEL ETED THE ADDITION OF RS.66 150 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY. 26. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPO RTS THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 27. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE WHILE RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUBMITS THAT PLEA TAKEN BY HIM IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL MAY ALSO BE CONSIDERED WHILE DECI DING THE ABOVE ISSUE. 28. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSING T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND KEEPING IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING RECORD ED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ALL THE FOUR FLATS BEING ONE R ESIDENTIAL HOUSE USED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY THEREFORE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS TAKEN AS NIL. THIS VIEW ALSO FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECI SION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 20 - CASE OF SURESH C SADARANGANI (2009) 33 SOT 428 (MUM ) (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY WE WHILE UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) REJECT THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. 29. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE STANDS ALL OWED AND REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9.2.2011. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (D.K. AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DT. 09/02/2011. *GPR TRUE COPY COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. CIT(APPEALS) 4. CIT 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT MUMBAI. BY ORDER DY./ASST.REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI ITA NOS.2003 & 2611/MUM//07 - 21 - DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 20.01.2011 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED & APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SR.PS/PS 02.02.2011 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7. FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.