ACIT 20(3), MUMBAI v. TECHNOWELD, MUMBAI

ITA 2977/MUM/2009 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 297719914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAAFT2273Q
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2977/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant ACIT 20(3), MUMBAI
Respondent TECHNOWELD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 25-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 17-02-2011
Next Hearing Date 17-02-2011
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 08-05-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA (A.M.) AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (J.M.) IT(SS)A NO. 36/MUM/2009 BLOCK PERIOD 01.4.95 TO 21.3.02 M/S TECHNOWELD 1-28 MITTAL ESTATE ANDHERI-KURLA ROAD MAROL ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI - 400 059. PAN : AAAFT 2273Q VS. A .C.I.T. 20(3) ROOM NO. 506 5 TH FLOOR PIRAMAL CHAMBERS JIJEEBHAI LANE NR. MORARJI MILLS PAREL MUMBAI -400012. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 2977/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 A.C.I. T. 20(3) ROOM NO. 506 5 TH FLOOR PIRAMAL CHAMBERS JIJEEBHAI LANE NR. MORARJI MILLS PAREL MUMBAI -400012. VS. M/S TECHNOWELD 1-28 MITTAL ESTATE ANDHERI-KURLA ROAD MAROL ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI - 400 059. PAN : AAAFT 2273Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NARAYAN ATUL DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI D. SONGATE O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO J.M. THESE TWO APPEALS ONE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING IT(SS)A NO. 36/MUM/2009 AND OTHER FILED BY THE REVENUE BEING IT A NO. 2977/MUM/2009 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO INDEPENDENT ORDERS PASSED BY T HE LD. CIT (A) DATED 9.5.2006 ITA NO.IT(SS)36/M/09 & ITA 2977/M/09 M/S TECHN OWELD 2 AND 15.1.2007 ARISING FROM BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND REG ULAR ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 1999-2000. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEAR CH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132(1) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 21.3.02 A T THE OFFICE PREMISES OF M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. AT SURINDRA HOUSE SAFED PO OL SAKINAKA MUMBAI 72 CLARK HOUSE COLABA AND ALSO AT THE RESIDENCE OF TH E DIRECTORS. THE DDI WHO HAD CONDUCTED THE ACTION U/S 132(1) HAD OBSERVED FROM T HE CREDITORS LEDGER OF M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. THAT CREDIT BALANCE OF ` 1.68 CRORES IN M/S TECHNOWELD WAS OUTSTANDING. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U /S 158BC IN THE CASE OF M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. THE A.O. ACIT CENT. CIR. 4 6 MUMBAI CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHATEVER PAYMENTS MADE BY HIS ASSESSEE WERE FOR EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATION AND NOT FOR THE P URPOSE OF BUSINESS AND IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AND ENQUIRY CONDUCTED AND FAILURE ON THE PART OF M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. TO GIVE ANY SATISFACTORY EX PLANATION ITS CLAIM OF EXPENSES WAS TREATED AS FALSE AND NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINES S AND THEREFORE HE TREATED THE EXPENSES OF ` 1 68 06 442/- AS FALSE AND NOT RELATED TO THE BUSI NESS AND ADDED IT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND TAXED IN THE CASE OF M/S SUR INDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. AN INTIMATION U/S 158BD WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ACIT CC -46 VIDE HIS LETTER 07.04.2004 THAT IN THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT I N THE CASE OF M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. ASSESSED IN HIS CHARGE IT WAS NOTIC ED THAT M/S TECHNOWELD WAS PAID ` 1.68 CRORES ON VARIOUS DATES. AS PER THE INFORMAT ION RECEIVED FROM THE ACIT CC-46 MUMBAI AND AS CONFIRMED FROM THE CONCE RNED BANK VIZ. THE BHARAT COOP. BANK (MUMBAI) LTD. ANDHERI BRANCH A/C NO. 0 00002 WAS FOUND CREDITED WITH AN AMOUNT OF ` 1 68 06 400/- BY M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. DURIN G A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS FROM 29.01.1999 TILL 08.03.1999. ON THE BASIS OF THIS INFORMATION A NOTICE U/S 158BD READ WITH 158BC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE CALLING UPON IT TO FILE THE BLOCK RETURN FOR THE PERIOD ITA NO.IT(SS)36/M/09 & ITA 2977/M/09 M/S TECHN OWELD 3 01.04.1995 TO 21.3.2001. THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNE RSHIP FIRM CONSISTING OF TWO PARTNERS VIZ. SHRI RAMESHWARDAS B. AGARWAL (SINCE D IES ON 20.09.2001) AND HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW SMT. BEENA R. AGARWAL. THE EXISTIN G PARTNERS SMT. BEENA AGARWAL THOUGH INITIALLY QUESTIONED THE LEGALITY O F THE NOTICE U/S 158BD ISSUED HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME (ITS 2B) FOR BLOCK A SSESSMENT ON 20.01.2005 DECLARING UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT ` NIL. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THE A.O. TREATED THE AMOUNT OF ` 1 68 06 440/- AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF THE SAME U/S 6 9 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 BEING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WHILE FRAMING THE BLOC K ASSESSMENT. IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 THE A.O. MADE THE AD DITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT OF ` 1 68 06 400/- U/S 68 BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXP LAINED CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE BLO CK ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BY FILING SEPARATE APPEALS. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE IN BLOCK ASSESS MENT ORDER AND REGULAR ASSESSMENT WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. 3. BEFORE US THE LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE AMOUNT WAS ALREADY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AN D IT WAS PART OF THE BANK DEPOSIT AND FINALLY FIXED DEPOSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH COOPERATIVE BANK THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 158 BD. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT EVEN OTHERWISE THE REVENUE HAS TREATED THE SAME AMOUNT AS CASH CREDIT WHILE FR AMING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 1999-2000 IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THE LD. A.R. HAS ALSO QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE A.O. U/S 158BD AND SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. C AN INVOKE THE JURISDICTION U/S 158BD ONLY IF THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE SEARCH SHOW S UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED. THE LD . A.R. HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS INVOKED THE JURISDICTION U/S 158 BD ON LY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION ITA NO.IT(SS)36/M/09 & ITA 2977/M/09 M/S TECHN OWELD 4 WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS HE HAS PLEADED THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDI NG U/S 158BD IS ITSELF IS ILLEGAL WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTION AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER FRAMED U/S 158BD IS VOID AB INITIO. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED D.R. HAS RELIED U PON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY RECORD TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT FOUND IN THE FIXED DEPOSIT S. THIS FACT CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE A.O. ONLY WHEN THE SEARCH ACTION W AS TAKEN IN THE OFFICE OF M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. AND IT WAS FOUND THAT M/S S URINDRA ENGG. CO. CLAIMED SOME EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES FROM THE ASSE SSEE WHICH WERE NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEREFORE THE INFORMATION AND THE RECORD FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDING CLEAR LY SHOWS THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND REL EVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WHEN THE A.O. OF THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE INFORMATION FROM THE A.O. HAVING JURISDICTION OVER M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD . HE HAS ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 158BC R.W.S. 158BD. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE THE ASSESEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.9.2005 AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO BU SINESS CONNECTION WITH M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DISPU TED THE ALLEGED TRANSACTIONS OF THE SAID FIRM AND SUPPLY OF MATERIAL. HOWEVER THE A.O. BASED ON THE INFORMATION SENT BY THE A.O. OF M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. MA DE THE ADDITION TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT WH ILE FRAMING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. AS FAR AS INVOKING OF JURISDICTION U/S 158BD THE A.O. HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONS SEARCHED I.E. M/S SUR INDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. HAS SENT RELEVANT MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED DURING SEARCH SH OWING UNDISCLOSED INCOME ITA NO.IT(SS)36/M/09 & ITA 2977/M/09 M/S TECHN OWELD 5 BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE HENCE IN OUR VIEW THE CONDITIONS AS PRESCRIBED U/S 158BD IS SATISFIED AND THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN IN ITIATING THE PROCEEDING U/S 158 BD. HOWEVER DURING THE ASSESSMENT WHEN IT WAS FO UND THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE INFORMATION AND MATERIAL RECE IVED BY THE A.O. FOR INITIATING PROCEEDING U/S 158BD WAS ALSO PART OF THE BANK ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE INVESTED IN THE BANK FIXED DEPOSITS. ONCE THE SAID AMOUNT I S PART OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND PARTICULARLY BANK ACCOUNT THEN IT CANNOT BE T REATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 158BD. FURTHER WHEN THE A.O. HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THE SAID AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WH ILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 1999-2000 THE SAME AMOUNT CANNOT BE TREAT ED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 69 OF THE ACT WHILE F RAMING BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S 158BD IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE BLOCK ASSESSME NT. 6. IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT THE A.O. TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND PARTICULARLY IN FIXED DEPOSIT AS U NEXPLAINED CREDIT. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF M /S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. WHERE THE ADDITION WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF BOGUS PUR CHASES FROM THE ASSESSEE THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E IN THAT CASE VIDE ORDER DATED 24 TH SEPTEMBER 2009 IN ITA NO. 253/M/.. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS TREATED THE PURCHASES AS GENU INE ONE AND DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. THEREFO RE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE MADE AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE A NY RECORD OR EVEN BOOKS OF ITA NO.IT(SS)36/M/09 & ITA 2977/M/09 M/S TECHN OWELD 6 ACCOUNT TO SHOW GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION THE REFORE THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXP LAINED CREDIT. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND REL EVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY RECORD OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT OF THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE BANK. EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT DISCLOSED THE TRANSACTION WITH M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTED ANY INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF ANY SALE TO M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS ALSO VERY MATERIAL AND IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.9.0 5 AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. THE A.O. REPRODUCED THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AT PAGE 3 OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER:- BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 0(3) MUMBAI AFFIDAVIT I BEENA AGGARWAL W/O MR. ROSHAN AGGARWAL HAVING RE SIDENTIAL ADDRESS AT 13/345 JASMINE NEW MIG COLONY BANDRA (E) MUMBAI 400051 HEREBY STATE ON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION AS UNDER: 1. THAT I AM A WOMAN FROM EXTREMELY TRADITIONAL AGGAR WAL FAMILY AND I NEVER COMMUNICATED WITH MY FATHER-IN-LAW LATE MR. RAMESHW ARDAS AGGARWAL WHO INTRODUCED ME TO PARTNERSHIP FIRM BY THE NAME OF M/ S TECHNOWELD. HE NEVER TOLD ME ABOUT WHAT BUSINESS WAS CARRIED ON BY THE SAID FIRM . ONLY THING I REMEMBER HE USED TO TELL MY HUSBAND THAT THE BUSINESS OF TRADING THA T HE WAS DOING IN THE FIRM WAS NOT A VIABLE BUSINESS AND HENCE HE HAD CLOSED THE SAID BU SINESS. HERE ONE MAY NOTE THE FACT THAT AFTER THE SAD DEMISE OF MY FATHER-IN-LAW I HAVE NOT CARRIED ON ANY BUSINESS EITHER AS PROPRIETOR OR PARTNER WHIT ANY BODY. THI S CLEARLY SHOWS THAT I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF BUSINESS AND I HAD SIGNED AS A PARTNER OF TECHNOWELD JUST TO GIVE RESPECT TO HIM BECAUSE I COULD NOT SAY NO TO HIM WH EN HE TOLD ME TO SIGN ON THE DOCUMENTS OR PARTNERSHIP. 2. WE HAVE NO BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH THE M/S SURINDR A ENGINEERING AND THE COPIES OF BILLS SHOWN TO ME AS NOT SIGNED BY ME OR BY FATHER- IN-LAW. ITA NO.IT(SS)36/M/09 & ITA 2977/M/09 M/S TECHN OWELD 7 3. FURTHER I STATE THAT TURNOVER OF THE SAID FIRM IS LESS THAN RS. 50 LAKHS ONLY FOR A.Y. 1998/99 AND NO SUCH MATERIAL WAS SUPPLIED TO M/S SU RINDRA ENGINEERING. 4. I AM NOT GETTING ANY RECORDS OF RETURNS FILED FOR A SSTT. YEAR 1997-98 1998-99 & 1999-2000. EVEN BOOKS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. MY FATHE R-IN-LAW CARRIED OUT THE BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF M/S TECHNOWELD AND I WAS MERELY SLEE PING PARTNER IN THE SAID FIRM. 5. AS MY FATHER-IN-LAW WAS MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF A/ C I HAVE NEVER SEEN RECORDS OF THE FIN. AFTER THE DEATH OF MY FATHER-IN-LAW AS TO WHETHER ANY RETURNS HAS BEEN FILED I DO NOT KNOW ANY CA OR ANY PTHER PERSON BY WHOM THE RETURNS WERE FILED. 6. NEITHER MY SAID FATHER-IN-LAW NOR THE SAID FIRM HAD ANY OFFICE. 7. AS THERE IS NO INCOME IN THE PERIOD MENTIONED BY YO UR GOODSELF HENCE IT IS PRAYED THAT BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SO INITIATED MAY KINDLY BE DROPPED. I AM MAKING THIS AFFIDAVIT OUT OF MY OWN FREE WILL AND WITHOUT ANY FORCE COERCION COMPULSION OR UNDUE INFLUENCE OF WHATSOEVER NATURE FROM ANY PERSONS OR PERSONS. WHAT IS STATED HEREINABOVE IS TRUE TO MY OWN KNOWLE DGE AND BELIEF AND I HAVE NEITHER CONCEALED NOR MISREPRESENTED ANY MATERIAL FACTS. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER DISPUTED THE CO RRECTNESS OF THE AFFIDAVIT NOR IT HAS EXPRESSED WILLINGNESS TO PRODUCE RELEVANT MATER IAL AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT AND RELEVANT RECORD TO SHOW AND PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE BANK DEPOSIT T HE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF CASH CREDIT. MOREOVER WHEN THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED IN THE AFF IDAVIT HAVING NO BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. AND EVE N DENIED THE SALE TRANSACTIONS SHOWN IN THE BILLS THEN THE FINDING IN THE CASE OF M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. WILL HAVE NO BEARING ON THE ISSUE. THEREFORE IN OUR VIE W THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S SURINDRA ENGG. CO. LTD. WILL NOT COME TO RESCUE TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS FAILED TO SHOW THE RELEVANT BOO KS OF ACCOUNT & SOURCE OF BANK DEPOSIT ETC. ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT FIND ANY ILLEG ALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR MAKING THE ADDITION U/S 68 IN THE R EGULAR ASSESSMENT. ITA NO.IT(SS)36/M/09 & ITA 2977/M/09 M/S TECHN OWELD 8 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IN IT(SS)A 36/MUM2009 IS A LLOWED WHEREAS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2977/MUM/2009 IS DISMISSED.. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF MARCH 2011. SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 25 TH MARCH 2011. RK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- XXXII MU MBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 20- MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BENCH E MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI ITA NO.IT(SS)36/M/09 & ITA 2977/M/09 M/S TECHN OWELD 9 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 14.3.11 21.3.11 SR PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR ON 18.3.11 22.3.11 SR PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACE BEFORE THE 2 ND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY 2 ND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR PS SR.PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10 DATE OF DESPATCH SR PS