The ITO, Ward-4(3),, Ahmedabad v. Hytaisun Magnetics Ltd.,, Ahmedabad

ITA 2897/AHD/2008 | 1997-1998
Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 289720514 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAACH3873P
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2897/AHD/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-4(3),, Ahmedabad
Respondent Hytaisun Magnetics Ltd.,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 25-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 20-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 20-01-2011
Assessment Year 1997-1998
Appeal Filed On 08-08-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH D DD D BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI T.K.SHARMA T.K.SHARMA T.K.SHARMA T.K.SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AND AND AND SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING: 20 1.2011 DRAFTED ON:24-1 -2011 ITA NO. 2897 2898 /AHD/ 2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR :1997-98 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3) ROOM NO.106 1 ST FLOOR NAVJEEVAN TRUST BUILDING OFF. ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD. VS. HYTAISUN MAGNETICS LTD. MARUTI HOUSE OPP. AIR INDIA ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD. PAN/GIR NO. :AAACH 3873 P (A PPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ITA NO. 2722 /AHD/ 20 0 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-98 HYTAISUN MAGNETICS LTD. MARUTI HOUSE OPP. AIR INDIA ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3) ROOM NO.106 1 ST FLOOR NAVJEEVAN TRUST BUILDING OFF. ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD. APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K. SRIDHAR C.I.T.(D.R.) O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINS T THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-VII AHMEDABAD DATED 22-5-2008 AND 28-5-2008 IN THE QUANTUM APPEA L OF THE REVENUE AND IN THE PENALTY APPEAL. IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL OF THE REVENUE THE SOLE GROUND TAKEN IS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) - 2 - ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 TO 1997-98 ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CONTROVERSY INV OLVED IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON 22-3-2000 UNDER SECTION143( 3) OF THE ACT MADE THE ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE HEAD UNAC COUNTED INCOME FROM ILLEGAL TRANSACTIONS OF `.3 85 35 407/- THE DETAIL S OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- I) UNACCOUNTED INCOME. `. 1 88 10 304/- II) INITIAL INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTION WITH MCDOWELL & CO. LTD. UNDER SECTION 69. `. 51 02 500/- III) INITIAL INVESTMENT IN UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS WITH RIL UNDER SECTION.69 `. 28 25 000/- IV) INVESTMENT IN PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS I.E. PEAK CREDIT UNDER SECTION 69. `. 1 69 25 000 /- V) UNACCOUNTED INCOME EARNED OUT OF CASH ON HAND. `. 1 72 603/- `.3 85 35 407/- 3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ABOVE COMPUTED INCOME BEING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND SINCE THESE INCOMES ARE EARN ED OUT OF ILLEGAL TRANSACTIONS/UNRECORDED TRANSACTION AND AS THE BOOK RESULTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED THE EARLIER YEARS LOSS IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE COMPUTED INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT BEING EARNED FROM ILLEGAL TRANSACTIONS OR UNRECORDED TRANSACTIONS. ACCORDINGL Y HE DID NOT ALLOW `.2 34 10 540/- THE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF OF LOSS AND COMPUTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH COMES AT `.3 85 35 410/-. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THE SA ID GROUND WAS NOT ADJUDICATED AND THEREFORE THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 11-4-2008 IN MA NO.1994/AHD/2007 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1994/AHD/20 01 DATED 22-6-2006) DIRECTED THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) TO DISPOSE OF - 3 - THE GROUND RELATING TO NOT ALLOWING THE SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS AFTER GIVING PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS OUT OF ADDITION OF `.3 85 35 407/- CONF IRMED THE ADDITION OF `.1 88 10 304/- COMPRISING OF UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTI ON AND OTHER ADDITIONS OF `.51 02 500/- `.28 25 000/- AND `.1 16 25 000/- .THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION. 139(3) OF THE ACT WAS INVALID AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CARRY F ORWARD OF THE LOSS AS DETERMINED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. 5. THE TRIBUNAL GAVE RELIEF OF `.12 44 440/- OUT OF THE ADDITION OF `.1 88 10 304/- ALTHOUGH THE RETURN OF THE CURRENT YEAR WAS HELD TO BE INVALID. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AS PER ASSESSMENT O RDER OF EARLIER YEARS AND AS PER THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST THE REVISED INCOME DETERMINED I N THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AMOUNTING TO `.2 34 10 540/- WHICH WAS THE INCOME A S PER THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22- 6-2006. 6. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD HUGE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES DETERMINED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF EARLIER YEAR S WHICH SHOULD BE GIVEN SET OFF. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 291 ITR 258 (MAD.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT BUSINESS LOSS SHOULD BE SET OFF AGAINST THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69 MA DE IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME SURRENDERED IN SURVEY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT BECAUSE T HE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE AS UNACCOUNTED PROFIT AND UNACCOUNTED INCOME F ROM TRANSACTIONS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS AND DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER YEARS CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME FROM SUCH ILLEGAL TRANSACTIONS OR UNRECORDED TRANSACTIONS. THE LEARN ED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE - 4 - TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE PURCHASE A ND SALES WERE NOT PROHIBITED UNDER ANY LAW AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED T O BE ILLEGAL OR BARRED BY ANY ACT. THERE ARE REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT NOT ACCOUNTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS WHICH SHOULD BE SET OFF AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS UNDER:- A.Y. BUSINESS LOSS DEPRECIATION TOTAL 92-93 67 30 821 NIL 67 30 821 93-94 1 46 36 152 10 13 53 345 11 59 89 497 94-95 NIL 2 02 51 256 2 02 51 256 95-96 NIL 71 19 092 71 19 09 2 96-97 13 09 79 683 5 59 92 204 18 69 71 887 97-98 20 41 59 338 4 28 03 908 24 69 17 246 TOTAL. 35 64 59 994 32 75 19 805 58 39 79 799 7. LETTER WAS ISSUED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERI FYING THE RECORDS AND REPORTING ABOUT THE CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES AND DEPR ECIATION AS PER THE ASSESSMENTS OF EARLIER YEARS. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER REPORTED THE FIGURES OF LOSSES FOR EARLIER YEARS AS PER THE LATE ST ORDERS AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDERS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) AND HONBLE TRIBUNAL WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- A.Y. BUSINESS LOSS DEPRECIATION AMOUNT (`) DATE OF REVISION ORDER. 92 - 93 67 30 820 - 67 30 820 22 - 12 - 99 93 - 94 1 46 36 152 10 13 53 345 11 59 89 497 16 - 03 - 05 94 - 95 10 94 084 1 59 86 698 1 70 80 782 04 - 03 - 98 95 - 96 - 68 44 055 68 44 055 18 - 06 - 02 96-97 - THE RETURN HAS BEEN TREATED AS INVA LID AND THEREFORE NO LOSS FOR THIS YEAR CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD. 8. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) THEREAFTER HELD THAT UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS CANNOT BE SET OFF AGA INST THE INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT BUT UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION - 5 - CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME UNDER ANY HEAD OR SO IT CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. AS THE ASSESS EE HAS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF `.10.13 CRORES IN A.Y. 1993-94 THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF `.1.59 CRORES IN A.Y. 1994-95 AND `.68.44 LACS I N A.Y. 1995-96 THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE SET OFF AGAINST DEEMED INCOME OF THE CURRENT YEAR I.E. A.Y. 1997-98 `.2 34 10 540/- IN THAT CASE RESULTED INCOME WOULD BE NET LOSS. ACCORDINGLY HE DIRECTED THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO ALLOW SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR THESE YEARS AGAINST THE INCOME FOR A.Y. 1997-98 AND CARRY-FORWARD OF THE BALANCE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR A. YRS. 1993-94 TO 1995-96 FOR SET OFF AGAINST THE INC OME OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 9. BEING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US TAKING THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL. THE LEARNED DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER. 10. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE RESPONDENT AS SESSEE WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 10-12-2010 AS EVIDENCED B Y THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD OF THE POST OFFICE PLACE ON RE CORD. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NEITHER ANY ADJOURNME NT APPLICATION WAS FILED. THE APPEAL WAS HEARD QUA EX-PARTE. THE RESPO NDENT ASSESSEE AND DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD S. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE LEARNED DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER BUT COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE FINDI NGS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HA D INCOME OF `.2 34 10 540/- ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. FURTHER IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECI ATION OF `.10.13 CRORES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 `.1.59 CRORES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994- 95 AND `.68.44 LACS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 WHIC H IS AVAILABLE FOR SET - 6 - OFF AGAINST INCOME OF THE CURRENT YEAR. AS PER PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ARE DEEMED AS PART OF CURRE NT YEARS DEPRECIATION TO THE EXTENT OF AVAILABLE INCOME. FURTHER THERE I S NO PROVISION UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT TO PROHIBIT SET OFF OF CURRENT YEAR S BUSINESS LOSS AGAINST INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ASSESSABLE UNDER TH E HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SECTION 70 DOES NOT PROHIBIT SUCH S ET OFF. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE PENALTY APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENG ED THE DELETION OF PENALTY OF `.99 88 000/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).WE FIND THAT T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DELETED TH E PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- I HAVE PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE AC T ON22-5-2008 IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL IN PURSUANCE TO THE ORDER OF ITA T IN MA NO.229/AHD/2007 ALLOWING SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION OF A.Y. 1993-94 AND THEREBY THE ASSESSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR A.Y. 1997-98 BECOMES LOSS AS THE UNABSORBED DEPRECI ATION FOR A.Y. 1993-94 IS `.10 13 53 545/- THEREFORE THE ASSESSED INCOME BECOMES LOSS. AS THE ASSESSED INCOME IS LOSS AND THE RETURN ED INCOME IS LOSS RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT CI TED SUPRA NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION. 271(1)(C) FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY THE PENALTY LEVIED IS C ANCELLED. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE DECIS ION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS L TD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 289 ITR 83 (SC) AFTER FINDING THAT BOTH RETURNED IN COME AND ASSESSED INCOME WERE LOSS. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. GOLD COIN HEALTH FOOD PVT. LTD. (2008) 304 ITR 308 (SC) HONBLE SUP REME COURT HAS REVERSED THE EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF VIRTUA L SOFT SYSTEMS LTD.(SUPRA) AND HAS HELD THAT EXPLANATION 4 TO SECTION 271(1)(C ) IS CLARIFICATORY AND THEREFORE RETROSPECTIVE IN APPLICATION AND HENCE I N CASES OF REDUCTION OF LOSS ALSO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) MAY BE L EVIABLE. IT IS OBSERVED - 7 - THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD NOT DECIDE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED VI EW IT SHALL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) FOR DECIDING THE SAME ON OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 14. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA. NO.2722/AHD/2008. 15 THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VIII AHMEDABA D DATED 13-6-2001. 16. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT BY REGISTERED P OST WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE ON 2-12-2010 AND THE SAME WAS S ERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON10-12-2010 AS EVIDENCED BY THE ACKNOWLED GEMENT CARD OF POST OFFICE PLACED ON RECORD. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED F OR HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING WITH THIS APPEAL. HENCE FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (PVT.) LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE . 17. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.2897/AHD/2008 IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL IN ITA. NO.2898/AHD/2008 I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2 722/AHD/2008 IS DISMISSED. ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: AHMEDABAD 25 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2011. - 8 - COMPILED AND COMPARED BY : PATKI COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-VIII AHMEDABAD. 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 24-1-11 ----------------- -- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 24-1-11 -------- ----------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 24-1-11 ------------- ------ JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED 24-1-11 ------------ ------- JM/AM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S 25-1-11 ----------- --------- 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 25-1-11 ------------ -------- 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 25-1-11 -------- ------------ 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ---------------- -------------------- A.R. 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- -- -------------------