THE DY CIT RG-8(3), Mumbai v. M/S. VRUSCHIK CONSULTANCY SECURITIES LTD., Mumbai

ITA 3774/MUM/2004 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 377419914 RSA 2004
Assessee PAN AAACV2068E
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 3774/MUM/2004
Duration Of Justice 6 year(s) 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant THE DY CIT RG-8(3), Mumbai
Respondent M/S. VRUSCHIK CONSULTANCY SECURITIES LTD., Mumbai
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 30-07-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 28-07-2010
Next Hearing Date 28-07-2010
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 12-05-2004
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) ITA NO.3774/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2000-01 THE DCIT RANGE 8(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 VS. M/S. VRUSCHIK CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT. LTD. 101 NEW APOLLO ESTATE MOGRA LANE ANDHERI(E) MUMBAI PAN-AAACV 2068E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI S.K. MAHAPATRA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI J.D. MISTRY O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 27.2.2004 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XXIX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE STCG ON SA LE OF SHARES OF RS.1 21 46 511/- AS SHARE TRADING INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE PRIMARILY ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: A) ASSESSEE IS IN BUSINESS OF TRADING OF SHARES AND HA S BEEN PURCHASING AND SELLING THESE SHARES FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS. B) ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE STCG OF RS.1 21 46 511/- O NLY WITH THE INTENTION OF CLAIMING LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON SALE OF ITA NO. 3774/M/04 2 SHARES OF RS.56 15 864/- AND SETTING OFF OF EARLIER YEAR CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.65 30 647/-. C) ASSESSEE IS TRADING COMPANY AND NOT AN INVESTMENT C OMPANY BECAUSE ITS GROSS TOTAL INCOME CONSISTS MAINLY OF B USINESS INCOME THROUGH TRADING IN SHARES. IN THIS REGARD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (2 ) TO SECTION 109. D) ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TOTAL SALES OF RS.2 56 99 956/- INCLUDING SALE OF SHARES OF RS.1 21 46 511/- AND THUS SALE OF SHARES CONSTITUTE ONLY 47.26% AND BALANCE 52.73% IS ON TOT AL INCOME. 3. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE AR AS DISCUSSED ABOVE I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE RE ASONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE STCG OF RS.1 21 46 511/- AS ASSESSEES BUSINESS INCOME ARE NOT PROPER. WHILE COMMENTING THAT ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS O F TRADING OF SHARES AND HAS BEEN PURCHASING AND SELLING THESE SH ARES FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS ASSESSING OFFICER APPEARS TO HAV E FORGOTTEN THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST AS WELL AS IN THE CURRENT YEAR. IT IS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS FIL ED THAT DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAS EARNED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2 56 99 956/- AS SHOWN IN THE SCHEDULE-E OF BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ABOVE INCOME INCLUDES STCG ON SALE O F SHARES OF RS.1 21 46 511/- WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER ERRONEOUS LY HAS ADOPTED AS THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. DETAILS FILED SHOW THAT THE TURNOVER OF SHORT TERM INVESTMENTS IS RS.10 37 41 129/- (10.37 CRORES). THE PURCHASE VALUE OF THE ABOVE I NVESTMENT IS RS.9 15 94 618/-(9.15 CRORES). IT IS THUS CLEAR F ROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE AR THAT DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAS D ISPOSED OFF INVESTMENT OF RS.10.37 CRORES AND NOT RS.1 21 46 51 1/- AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS PERTINENT TO STATE HERE THAT TOTAL SALES OF RS.2 56 99 956/- STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 3.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN FACT REPRESENTS THE INCOME AND NOT THE S ALES. APART FROM THE SHORT TERM INVESTMENTS DISPOSED OFF BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 3774/M/04 3 DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ALSO TREATED SALES OF SHARES OF RS.2 07 00 472/- AS BUSINESS SALES SHOWN IN SCHEDULE- F OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. APPELLANT HAS S HOWN LOSS OF RS.93 01 809/- ON THE SHARE TRADING WHICH HAS BEEN DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE STCG OF RS.1 21 46 511/- IN MY OPINION CANNOT BE TREATED A S BUSINESS INCOME MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN PURCHASING AND SELLING SHARES FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS . COMING TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS TREATED THE GAIN OF RS.1 21 46 511/- JUST TO CLAIM LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES OF RS.56 15 864/- AN D SETTING OFF OF EARLIER YEAR CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.65 30 647/- AGAIN I DO NOT FIND FORCE IN THE ASSESSING OFFICERS THIS ARGUMENT. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED STCG WHICH IS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO THE SET OFF AGAINST CAPITAL LOSSES SAME CANNOT BE USED AS A GROUND FOR TREATING THE STCG AS BUSINESS INCOME. WHAT HAS TO BE SEEN IS T HE REAL NATURE CHARACTER AND INTENTION OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE HAS TREATED SHARES AS ITS INVESTMENTS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN AUDITED BY T HE AUDITORS. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MAT ERIAL EXCEPT MAKING SOME ASSUMPTIONS TO HOLD THAT STCG REPRESENT S ASSESSEES BUSINESS INCOME. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCE TO SHOW THAT THE SHORT TERM INVESTMENTS HAVE EVER BEEN HELD AS INVESTMENTS. I AGREE WITH THE AR THAT INTENTION OF HOLDING THESE SHARES AS INVESTMENTS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ENTRIES M ADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. NO DOUBT ENTRIES MADE IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT ALWAYS THE DETERMINING FACTOR OF T HE REAL CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTION BUT AS THE SAME TIME THEY CAN ALTOGETHER NOT BE IGNORED IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE C ONTRARY TO THE FACTS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO COUNTER THE A SSESSEES CLAIM THAT INCOME OF RS.1 21 46 511/- REPRESENTS IT S STCG. IN FACT THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF STCG HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICERS. FOR EXAMPLE IN THE REGARD AR HAS DRAWN MY ATTENTI ON TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE U/S.143(3) FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 1998- 99 IN WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT DEALING IN SHARES AND SECURITIES AND CONDUCTING AND PROVIDING FINANCES AND RELATED SERVICES. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES AT RS.4 65 822/- WHICH HAS BEEN CARRIED FORWARD FOR SET OFF AND INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN AT NIL ITA NO. 3774/M/04 4 WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. SIMILARLY IN THE INTIMATION MADE U/S.143(1)(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 ASSESSEES CLAIM OF STCG ON SALE OF S HARES OF RS.36 00 000/- HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 WHERE STCG OF RS.22 615/- AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.4 742/- HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE INTIMATION MADE U/S.143(1). IT THEREFORE APPEARS THAT NOT ONLY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GAIN/LOSSE S AS WELL AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN/LOSSES. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS IN EARLIER YEAS. A R ALSO ARGUED BEFORE ME THAT IF STCG OR LOSS IS TREATED AS BUSINE SS INCOME THEN WHAT IS THE NEED OF CONTAINING THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OR LOSS IN THE I.T. ACT. IF THE ASSESSEE CAN HAVE ONLY LONG TERM INVESTMENTS AND CAN ONLY DO SHARE TRADING AND CANNOT HELD SHORT TERM CAPITAL ASSETS THEN THE PROVISIONS IN THE I.T. ACT RELATED TO THE SHORT TER M CAPITAL ASSET IS RENDERED REDUNDANT. THEREFORE THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL ASSET CAN BE TREATED AS SUCH IF THEY HAVE BEEN DISPOSED O FF EVEN DURING THE YEAR IF THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO HOLD THEM AS INVESTMENTS. THUS IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD THE ABOVE INVESTMENTS AS INVESTMENTS. IN FACT ASSESS EE HAS STATED THAT THESE INVESTMENTS WERE MEANT TO BE HELD AS LON G TERM INVESTMENTS BUT BECAUSE THEY HAD TO BE SOD NOT OUT OF THEIR FREE CHOICE BUT IN COMPULSION SIMILAR TO THE COMPUL SIONS THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED IN THE CASE OF MR. LARSEN IN CIT VS. HOLCK LARSEN 160 ITR 67. THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASING IS IMPORTANT SUBSEQUENT SALE DOES NOT ERSATZ THE ORIGINAL INTENTION TO HOLD THE SHARES AS INVESTMENTS. FROM THIS FACT ALSO IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE S ACTION TO SELL WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. AR HAS ALSO STATE D THAT THESE INVESTMENTS WHICH WERE MADE TO BE HELD AND MAD E T O HELD AS LONG TERM INVESTMENTS IF WERE NOT SOLD THE COMPANY WOULD HAVE INCURRED HUGE LOSSES SUBSEQUENTLY AS THE PRICES STA RTED FALLING DOWN. THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME MAINLY CONSISTED OF CAP ITAL GAIN. IN THIS REGARD AR IN ITS SUBMISSION DT. 11 TH FEB 2004 HAS STATED THAT LOSS UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR IS OF RS. 47 17 116/- WHEREAS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR (EVEN AFTER INT ER-SOURCE SET OFF) IS RS. 65 30 647/-. IT IS THUS SEEN THAT NOT ONLY IN TERMS OF TURNOVER BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF INCOME APPELLANTS IN VESTMENTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE TRANSACTIONS CONDUCTED IN THE S HARE TRADING ITA NO. 3774/M/04 5 BUSINESS. MOREOVER APPELLANT HAS NOT INCURRED LOS S BUT HAS EARNED THE GAIN OF RS. 1 21 46 511/- THAT TOO ON CA PITAL INVESTMENTS AND THEREFORE ON BOTH THE ACCOUNTS TH E PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION TO SEC. 73 CANNOT APPLY. IT WAS FOU ND THAT SHORT TERM INVESTMENTS REPRESENT THE SHARES OF ONLY ONE C OMPANY I.E. APTECH LTD. AND OUT OF THE STCG OF RS. 1 21 46 511/ - CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 1 17 11 538/- (MORE THAN 96%) HAS ARISE N FROM THE SALE OF 8 000 SHARES ON 4 TH FEB. 2000 WHICH WERE HELD FOR A P2ERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS APPROXIMATELY. AR HAS FILED THE COPIES OF THE BROKERS NOTES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS. IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS THAT ASSESSEE HELD THE ABOVE INVESTMENT FOR FOUR MONTHS APP. AND THEREFORE CAN REASONABLY BE SAID TO BE THE INVESTM ENTS OF SHORT TERM NATURE AT LEAST IN RESPECT OF STCG OF RS.11711 538/-. SINCE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE DETAILS OF REMAINI NG PART OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN I.E. RS.4 34 973/- (RS.121 46511 RS.11711538) AND THEREFORE IN MY OPINION THIS BA LANCE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.4 34 973/- CAN AT BEST BE T REATED AS INCOME FROM SHARE TRADING BUSINESS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO TREAT THE GAIN OF S.11711538/- AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND INCOME OF RS.4 34 973/- AS INCOME FROM SHARE TRADING BUSINESS. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TREAT GAIN OF RS. 1 17 11 538/- AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAI N INSTEAD OF TREATING AS BUSINESS INCOME WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AS THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINLY OF INCOME U NDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN AND THEREFORE LOSS ON ACCOU NT OF SHARE TRADING BUSINESS CANNOT BE DEEMED AS SPECULAT ION LOSS IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION TO SEC. 73 OF THE A CT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE ITA NO. 3774/M/04 6 5. THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI J.D. MISTRY SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARES HAD TO BE SOLD DUE TO BUSINESS COMP ULSION SINCE THERE WAS A STEEP FALL IN THE PRICES WHICH THE ASSESSEE H AD ANTICIPATED. IF THE SHARES HAD NOT BEEN SOLD IT WOULD HAVE LANDED THE COMPANY IN ACUTE FINANCIAL CRISIS. AS THERE WAS A SHARP DECR EASE IN THE PRICING OF SHARE. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 7. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD TO SELL THE INVESTMENTS WHICH WERE MADE TO BE HELD AS LONG TERM INVESTMENT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY WOULD HAV E INCURRED HUGE LOSSES SUBSEQUENTLY AS THE PRICES STARTED FALLING D OWN. FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED ABOUT EACH ONE OF THE OBJE CTIONS RAISED BY THE AO AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE INVESTMENTS ARE OF SHORT TERM NATURE. 8. WE OBSERVED THAT IN THE PAST ALSO THE ASSESSEE H AS SHOWN SHORT TERM GAIN/LOSSES AS WELL AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN/ LOSSES. THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM OF STCG HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. 9. IN THIS REGARD AR HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE U/S. 143(3) FOR A.Y. 1998-99 IN WHICH AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF INVESTMENT DEALING IN SHARES AND SECURITIES AND C ONDUCTING AND PROVIDING FINANCES AND RELATED SERVICES. IN THE CO MPUTATION OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 1998-99 ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPI TAL LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES AT RS. 4 65 822/- WHICH HAS BEEN CARRIED FOR WARD FOR SET OFF AND INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN AT NIL WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. SIMILARLY IN THE INTIMAT ION MADE U/S. ITA NO. 3774/M/04 7 143(1)(A) FOR A.Y. 1997-98 ASSESSEES CLAIM OF STC G ON SALE OF SHARES OF RS. 36 00 000/- HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. SI MILAR IS THE POSITION IN A.Y. 1995-96 WHERE STCG OF RS. 22 615/- AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 4 742/- HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN TH E INTIMATION MADE U/S. 143(1). 10. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GOP AL PUROHIT HAS HELD AT PARA-3 AS FOLLOWS: IN SO FAR AS QUESTION (B) IS CONCERNED THE TRIBUN AL HAS OBSERVED IN PARAGRAPH 8.1 OF ITS JUDGMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED A CONSISTENT PRACTICE IN REGARD TO THE NAT URE OF THE ACTIVITIES THE MANNER OF KEEPING RECORDS AND THE P RESENTATION OF SHARES AS INVESTMENT AT THE END OF THE YEAR IN ALL THE YEARS. THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT A DIFFERENT VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE THE PRINCIPLE O F RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE T RIBUNAL CORRECTLY ACCEPTED THE POSITION THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT ATTRACTED SINCE EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SEPA RATE IN ITSELF. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE UNIFORMITY IN TREATMENT AND CONSISTENCY WHEN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AR E IDENTICAL PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS APP ROACH OF THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE FAULTED. THE REVENUE DID NOT FU RNISH ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR ADOPTING A DIVERGENT APPROACH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. QUESTION (B) THEREFO RE DOES NOT ALSO RAISE ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION. 11. IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US THE A PAST HISTOR Y OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF STCG HAS BEEN AC CEPTED BY THE AO. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TH E MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOPAL PUROHIT (SUPRA) WE CONFIRM T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE. 12. GROUND NO. 2 IS CONSEQUENTIAL TO GROUND NO. 1 THEREFORE WE DISMISSED THE SAME. ITA NO. 3774/M/04 8 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JULY 2010 SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR ) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 30 TH JULY 2010 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR G BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T MUMBAI ITA NO. 3774/M/04 9 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 27.7.2010 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 28 . 7 .2010 ______ 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 FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: _________ ______ 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______