ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI v. KALPAK BUILDERS, MUMBAI

ITA 3119/MUM/2009 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 311919914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AADFK1518J
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 3119/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI
Respondent KALPAK BUILDERS, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 25-03-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 13-05-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY KUMAR (AM) AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR (JM) ITA NO. 3119 & 3120/MUM/2009 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2002-03 & 2003-04) INCOME-TAX OFFICER-19(3)(2) APPELLANT 3 RD FLOOR R.NO.306 PIRAMAL CHAMBERS PAREL MUMBAI 400012 V/S. M/S. KALPAK BUILDERS RESPONDENT 320 YESHWANT SMRUTI GR. FLOOR CORNER OF 1 ST & 12 TH ROAD KHAR (W) MUMBAI- 400 052 PAN : AADFK1518J C.O. NO. 222 & 223/MUM/2009 (ARISING FROM ITA NO. 3119 & 3120/MUM/2009) (ASSTT. YEAR : 2002-03 & 2003-04) M/S. KALPAK BUILDERS CROSS OBJECTOR 320 YESHWANT SMRUTI GR. FLOOR CORNER OF 1 ST & 12 TH ROAD KHAR (W) MUMBAI- 400 052 PAN : AADFK1518J V/S. INCOME-TAX OFFICER-19(3)(2) APPELLANT 3 RD FLOOR R.NO.306 PIRAMAL CHAMBERS PAREL MUMBAI 400012 APPELLANT BY :MR. MOHAMMAD USMAN RESPONDENT BY :MR. ARUN SATHE & MS. ARATI SATHE : O R D E R : PER R.S. PADVEKAR J.M THE REVENUE HAS FILED THESE TWO APPEALS CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD CIT(A)- XIX MUMBAI FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 AND 2003-04. ITA NO. 3120 & 3199/MUM/2009 & C.O. NO. 22 2 & 223/MUM/2009 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISIN G THE GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE PART OF THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). 2. WE FIRST TAKE THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR DISPOSAL. THE COMMON ISSUE WHICH ARISE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS IN THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 47 97 835/- AND RS. 14 11 805/- MADE U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT TOWARDS UN-SECURED LO AN RECEIVED FROM ONE OF THE GROUP CONCERN NAMELY M/S. SEA SHELL ESTATE DEV ELOPMENT PVT. LTD. IN THE A.Y. 2002-03 AND 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY. 3. THE FACTS WHICH ARE COMMON IN BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD RECEIVED UN-SECURED LOANS/AD VANCES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1 06 44 527/- FROM THE GROUP COMPANY M/S. SEA SHELL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. IN THE A.Y. 2002-03. SAME WA Y IN THE A.Y. 2003-04 THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED UN-SECURED LOAN/ADVANCES FROM THE SAID COMPANY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 13 78 671/-. AS NOTED BY THE A.O. THE REGISTERED SHAREHOLDERS OF M/S. SEA SHELL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT P VT. LTD. DURING THE A.Y. 2001-02 AND 2002-03 WERE AS UNDER : NAME OF THE VOTING POWER SHAREHOLDER F.Y. 2001-0 2 F.Y. 2002-03 1)MR. PRAKASH S. WAGH 50% 2 5% 2) MRS.PRATIMA P. WAGH 50% 25% 3) MR. RAJESH P. WAGH - 25% 4) MR. KEDAR P. WAGH - 25% 4. IN THE F.Y. 2001-02 AND 2002-03 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS AS UNDER : NAME OF THE PARTNER SHARE IN THE FIRM F.Y. 2001-02 F.Y. 2002-03 1)MR. PRAKASH S. WAGH 50% 4 0% ITA NO. 3120 & 3199/MUM/2009 & C.O. NO. 22 2 & 223/MUM/2009 3 2) MRS.PRATIMA P. WAGH 25% 35% 3) MR. RAJESH P. WAGH 25% 25% 5. THE A.O ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY AS TO WHY THE LOANS TAKEN FROM M/S. SEA SHELL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. OF RS. 1 06 44 527/- IN THE F.Y. 2001-02 AND RS. 1 13 78 671/- IN THE F.Y. 2002-03 SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS A DEEMED DIVIDEND IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FIRM TOOK THE CONTENTION THAT IT WAS NOT A REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER OF THE COMPANY NAMELY M/S. SEA SHELL ESTATE DEVELOPMEN T PVT. LTD. AND NEITHER WAS IT HAVING ANY BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF THE SHARES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF P.K. BA DIANI 76 ITR 369( BOM) AND D. DAMODARAN 121 ITR 572 (S.C). THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE CONDITION OF ACCUMULATED PROFIT WAS ALSO NOT SATIS FIED WHICH IS ONE OF THE MANDATE OF THE SEC. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT FOR TREATIN G THE LOANS OR ADVANCES AS A DEEMED DIVIDEND. THE ASSESSEE ALSO TOOK STAND T HAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM M/S. SEA SHELL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. WE RE IN THE NATURE OF THE ADVANCES RELATING TO THE REAL ESTATE DEALS. THE A. O. REJECTED ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF APPLICA BILITY OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT THE A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED NOT ONLY WHEN A BENEFICIAL SH AREHOLDER RECEIVES LOAN OR ADVANCE FROM THE PVT. LTD. COMPANY BUT ALSO WHEN A FIRM IN WHICH THE SAID PERSON IS A PARTNER AND HAVING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST RECEIVES SUCH SUM FROM THE COMPANY IN WHICH THE SAID PARTNER IS THE BENEF ICIAL SHAREHOLDER. IN THE OPINION OF THE A.O SINCE THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSES SEE FIRM NAMELY SHRI PRAKSH S. WAGH AND MRS. PRATIMA P. WAGH WERE ALSO DIRECTOR S IN M/S. SEA SHELL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. HOLDING MORE THAN 10% EQUITY RIGHTS THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 2(2)(E) ARE ATTRACTED AND SAME HAS TO BE TREATE D AS A DEEMED DIVIDEND. THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 47 97 835/- U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IN THE A.Y. 29002-03 AND RS. 14 11 805 IN THE A.Y. 2003-04 . THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAID ADDITIONS BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE FIRST CONDITION WHICH NEEDS TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE EVOKING THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) IS TO SEE WH ETHER THERE IS A TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PRIVATE LTD. COMPANY AND REGISTERED SHA REHOLDER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY . THE LD CIT(A) WAS OF THE FURTHER VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS NOT ITA NO. 3120 & 3199/MUM/2009 & C.O. NO. 22 2 & 223/MUM/2009 4 REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER AND THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSE SSEE FIRM ARE THE REGISTERED SHAREHOLDERS AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WILL NOT BE ATTRACTED IN RESPECT OF THE ADVANCE S/LOANS BORROWED FROM M/S. SEA SHELL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT UNLESS THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS THE SHAREHOLD ER OF THE CO. OR THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS ADVANCED ANY MONEY TO THE PARTNER S AND RETURNED THE SAME TO THE GROUP COMPANY AND THUS THERE IS NO FLOW OF MONEY TO THE REGISTERED SHAREHOLDERS I.E. THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH THE LOAN/ADVANCES WERE NEVER MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM. THE LD CIT(A) R ELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN IN THE CASE OF HOTEL HILLTOP 217 CTR (RAJ.) 527 AS WELL AS ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S. BHAUMIK COLOR PVT. LTD. 118 ITD 1(MUM)(S.B.). NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22) (E) OF THE ACT. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE NARRATED HEREIN-ABOVE. ADMITTEDLY THE A SSESSEE FIRM IS NOT THE REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER OR HAVING ANY EQUITY STAKE I N M/S. SEA SHELL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. THE ONLY CASE OF THE A.O IS THAT THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ARE THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE SAID GROU P COMPANY AND THEY ARE HAVING SHAREHOLDING MORE THAN 10% AND HENCE THE A SSESSEE COMPANY IS THE BENEFICIAL SHAREHOLDER. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O THAT BY USE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AS DEVICE THE MONEY WAS BORROWED AND SIPHONED SAME TO THE PARTNERS. NOW THE ISSUE IS WELL SETTLED BY THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL HILLTOP (SUPR A) AS WELL AS BY THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF BHAUM IK COLOR PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). IN THE CASE OF BHAUMIK COLOR PVT. LTD. (S UPRA) THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH AFTER REFERRING TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE O F HOTEL HILLTOP SUPRA HAS HELD AS UNDER : 22. IT IS THUS CLEAR FROM THE AFORESAID PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT TO ATTRACT THE FIRST LIMB OF THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) THE PAYMENT MUST BE TO A PERSON WHO IS A REGISTERED HOL DER OF SHARES. AS ALREADY MENTIONED THE CONDITION UNDER THE 1922 ACT AND THE 1961 ACT REGARDING THE PAYEE BEING A SHAREHOLDER REMAINS THE SAME AND IT I S THE CONDITION THAT SUCH ITA NO. 3120 & 3199/MUM/2009 & C.O. NO. 22 2 & 223/MUM/2009 5 SHAREHOLDER SHOULD BE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF THE SHARE S AND THE PERCENTAGE OF VOTING POWER THAT SUCH SHAREHOLDER SHOULD HOLD THAT HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED AS AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION UNDER THE 1961 ACT. THE WORD SHAREHOLDER ALONE EXISTED IN THE DEFINITION OF DIVIDEND IN THE 1922 ACT. THE EXPRESSION SHAREHOLDER HAS BEEN INTERPRETED UNDER THE 1922 ACT TO MEAN A REGIS TERED SHAREHOLDER. THIS EXPRESSION SHAREHOLDER FOUND IN THE 1961 ACT HAS TO BE THEREFORE CONSTRUED AS APPLYING ONLY TO REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER. IT IS A PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES THAT WHERE ONCE CERTAIN WORDS IN AN ACT HA VE RECEIVED A JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION IN ONE OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS AND THE LEGISLATURE HAS REPEATED THEM IN A SUBSEQUENT STATUTE THE LEGISLATURE MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE USED THEM ACCORDING TO THE MEANING WHICH A COURT OF COM PETENT JURISDICTION HAS GIVEN THEM. 23. IN THE 1961 ACT THE WORD SHAREHOLDER IS FOLLOWED BY THE FOLLOWING WORDS BEING A PERSON WHO IS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHAR ES. THIS EXPRESSION USED IN SECTION 2(22)(E) BOTH IN TH E 1961 ACT AND IN THE AMENDED PROVISIONS WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1988 ONLY QUALIFIES THE WORD SHAREHOLDER AND DOES NOT IN ANY WAY ALTER THE POS ITION THAT THE SHAREHOLDER HAS TO BE A REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER. THESE PROVISION S ALSO DO NOT SUBSTITUTE THE AFORESAID REQUIREMENT TO A REQUIREMENT OF MERELY HO LDING A BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE SHARES WITHOUT BEING A REGISTERED HOLDER OF SHARES. THE EXPRESSION BEING IS A PRESENT PARTICIPLE. A PARTICIPLE IS A WORD WHICH IS PARTLY A VERB AND PARTLY AN ADJECTIVE. IN SECTION 2(22)(E) THE PRESE NT PARTICIPLE BEING IS USED TO DESCRIBE THE NOUN SHAREHOLDER LIKE AN ADJECTIVE. TH E EXPRESSION BEING A PERSON WHO IS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES IS TH EREFORE A FURTHER REQUIREMENT BEFORE A SHAREHOLDER CAN BE SAID TO FALL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. IN THE 1961 ACT SECTION 2(22) (E) IMPOSES A FURTHER CONDITION THAT THE SHAREHOLDER HAS ALSO TO BE BENEFICIAL OWNE R OF SHARES (NOT BEING SHARES ENTITLED TO A FIXED RATE OF DIVIDEND WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT A RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PROFITS) HOLDING NOT LESS THAN TEN P ER CENT OF THE VOTING POWER. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNE D D.R. THAT UNDER THE 1961 ACT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF A SHAREHOLDER BEING A REGISTERED HOLDER AND THAT EVEN A BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF SHARES WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. 6. ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IN OUR CONSIDERED OP INION AS THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS NOT THE REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER OF M/S. SEA SHELL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. THE DEEMING PROVISION OF SECTION 2(22)(E ) CANNOT BE EVOKED TO BRING TO TAX ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM M/S. SEA SHELL ESTAT E DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. AND THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAME. N OW THIS ISSUE STAND COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT OF THE GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. HOTEL HILLTOP (SUPRA) A S WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE O F BHAUMIK COLOR PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). IN OUR OPINION THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS IN ITA NO. 3120 & 3199/MUM/2009 & C.O. NO. 22 2 & 223/MUM/2009 6 BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME AR E CONFIRMED. 7. SO FAR AS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE CONCERNED TH E ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE A.O U/S . 147 OF THE ACT BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUND IN BOTH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS : 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(3)(2) IN REOPENING OF THE AS SESSMENT U/S. 147 R.W.S. 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND FAILED T O APPRECIATE THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFUL LY CONSIDERED THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD CIT(A) FOR CONFIRMING THE A CTION OF THE A.O. SO FAR AS A.Y. 2002-03 IS CONCERNED THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN ON 28.10.2002 THERE WAS NO REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3). THE A.O. SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 ON 18.9.2006 WH ICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH WAS EVEN FOUR YEARS SO HENC E THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED IN THE PROTECTION GIVEN BY THE PROVISO TO S ECTION 147. FROM THE INFORMATION IN HAND PRIMA FACIE THE A.O HAS REASO N TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD NOT DISCLOSED THAT PARTNERS OF T HE ASSESSEE FIRM NAMELY MR. PRAKASH S. WAGH AND MRS. PRATIMA P. WAGH WERE DIREC TORS IN M/S. SEA SHELL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE SHAREHOLDING FOR MORE THAN 10% OF THE VOTING POWER. HENCE THE A.O HAD A BELIEF THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF THE D EEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF ADVANCES RECEI VED FROM M/S. SEA SHELL ESTATE PVT. LTD. IT IS NOW WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT THE INFORMATION OR MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR FORMATION OF THE BELIEF NEED NOT END INTO THE DETERMINATION OF THE TAXABLE INCOME. MOREOVER IN OUR OPINION THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CA SE OF ACIT V/S. RAJESH JAVERI STOCKBROKERS PVT. LTD. 291 ITR 500. THE P RINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S. RAJE SH JAVERI STOCKBROKERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE A SSESSEES CASE. WE THEREFORE CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD CIT(A) THAT THE A.O HAS RIGHTLY INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 3120 & 3199/MUM/2009 & C.O. NO. 22 2 & 223/MUM/2009 7 9. SO FAR AS A.Y. 2003-04 IS CONCERNED THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/ S. 143(3) WAS MADE ON 27.3.2006 BUT SUBSEQUENTLY THE A.O ISSUED THE NOT ICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT DT. 27.3.2008 WHICH WAS SERVED ON ASSESSEE ON 28.3.2008 . IN THIS AESSMENT YEAR AS PER THE RECORD AS THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE A.Y. 203-04 THE PROTECTION GIVEN BY THE PROVISO BY SECTION 147 IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSE SSEE. SO FAR AS THE OTHER FACTS ARE CONCERNED THOSE ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE F ACTS FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03. IN OUR OPINION THE A.O HAS RIGHTLY EXERCISED THE JURI SDICTION U/S. 147 BY ISSUING THE NOTICE TO HE ASSESSEE U/S. 148. WE ACCORDINGL Y CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF THE NOTICE U/S. 148 IN BO TH THE A.YS. AND WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO DISMISS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS. 10. IN THE RESULT REVENUES BOTH THE APPEALS AS WE LL AS ASSESSEES BOTH CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2010. SD/- SD/- (J.SUDHAR REDDY) (R.S. PADVEKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ON THIS 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2010. :US COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3.THE CIT(A)- XIX MUMBAI 4.THE CIT -19 MUMBAI 5.THE DR G BENCH MUMBAI 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT..REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI. ITA NO. 3120 & 3199/MUM/2009 & C.O. NO. 22 2 & 223/MUM/2009 8 US DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 15/17/3/10--------------- SR.P .S. 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 18/3/10 -------- ------ SR.P.S. 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED ----------- ---------- --- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED ----------- ----------- -- JM/AM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO ----------- ------------ - SR.P.S. THE SR. P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON --------- ----------- -- SR.P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK --------- --------- ---- SR.P.S. 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ------- --------- ---- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER --------- --------- ----