ITO 17(3)(3), MUMBAI v. MITESH JITENDRA DOSHI, MUMBAI

ITA 6188/MUM/2008 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 618819914 RSA 2008
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6188/MUM/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant ITO 17(3)(3), MUMBAI
Respondent MITESH JITENDRA DOSHI, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 25-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 17-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 17-03-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 16-10-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGH AVAN (JM) ITA NO. 6188/MUM/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2004-05 THE ITO 17(3) 6 TH FLOOR PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI-400 012 VS. SHRI MITESH JITENDRA DOSHI 44 TODI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE N.M. JOSHI MARG MUMBAI-400 011 PAN-AAAP 7701M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI HARI GOVIND SINGH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI JAYANT R. BHATT O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 15.7.2008 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XXVII FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL CARRYING OUT BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. HEM INDU STRIES AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF HIGH TENSILE BO LTS NUTS STUDS ETC. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O . OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT AND IN ORDER TO CHECK THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM THE A.O . ISSUED NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT TO SIX PARTIES WITH WHOM THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWE VER ONLY TWO PARTIES OUT OF THE SIX HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O. AND PRO DUCED NECESSARY ITA NO. 6188/M/08 2 DETAILS INCLUDING COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT AND BILL S REVEALING THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS HELD BY THESE PARTIES WITH THE APPELLA NT. 3. THE A.O. FURTHER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND AL SO TO FURNISH EXPLANATORY NOTE ON HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. IN RES PONSE THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BANK STATEMENT LOAN CONFIRMATIONS AND LED GER ACCOUNTS OF VARIOUS EXPENSES ANALYZING THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVI TIES OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS AS UNDER :- A. NUTS : CUTTING FACING DRILLING CHAMFERING T APPING HARDENING AND TEMPERING. B. BOLTS : CUTTING FACING FORGING TRIMMING MACH INING TURNING GRINDING THREADING HARDENING AND TEMPERI NG. C. STUDS : CUTTING FACING CHAMFERING TURNING GR INDING THREADING HARDENING AND TEMPERING. 4. THE A.O. ON EXAMINATION OF FACTS AND ALSO THE DE TAILS PRODUCED BY THE TWO PARTIES U/S.133(6) OF THE I.T.ACT FOUND THA T THERE IS NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE E HAD PURCHASED NUTS AND BOLTS AND THE SAME WAS SOLD WITHOUT ANY MANUFAC TURING ACTIVITY. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED LABOU R CHARGES OF RS. 27 22 160/-. FROM THIS IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE APPEL LANT HAS RECEIVED ALLIED STEEL ROUNDS AND BARS AND DID PROCESSING WOR K NAMELY THREADING AND NUT CUTTING ONLY WHICH IS NOT CONSIDERED AS MAN UFACTURING WORK AT ALL. THUS THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT IS PURC HASING READYMADE BOLTS NUTS AND STUDS FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES AND SE LLS THEM INTO THE MARKET ON PROFIT. THE AO OPINED THAT IT IS NOT SAT ISFYING THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80IB. FOR AN AC TIVITY TO CONSTITUTE MANUFACTURE IT IS NOT ONLY NECESSARY THAT A COMMERC IALLY DIFFERENT ARTICLE ITA NO. 6188/M/08 3 COMES INTO EXISTENCE BUT ALSO A NEW ARTICLE DIFFERE NT AND DISTINCT FROM THE RAW MATERIAL USED COMES INTO EXISTENCE. FURTHER IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUFACTURING / PRODUCTION ACTIVITY TOO THE APPELL ANT HAS ONLY ATTEMPTED TO DESCRIBE THAT SEMI FINISHED NUTS WERE PURCHASED AND THEN THESE SEMI FINISHED NUTS ARE PUT IN THE PROCESS OF CUTTING TURNING SHAPING GRINDING TAPPING HEAT TREATMENT RE-THRE ADING ETC. IN DIFFERENT WAYS IN ORDER TO MAKE IT APPEAR LIKE THERE IS MANUF ACTURING OF A NEW ARTICLE. 5. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS THE A.O. CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT CARRYING OUT ANY MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND THEREFO RE THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED AND THE E NTIRE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS HELD AS TAXABLE. 6. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT H E IS A MANUFACTURER OF NUTS AND BOLTS STUDS ASTM STANDARDS ETC. FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANUFACTURING THE NUT BOLTS / STUDS ETC. THE ASSES SEE PURCHASED RODS ROUNDS SEMI-FINISHED NUTS WHEREAS IT SELLS NUTS AN D BOLTS STUDS ASTM ETC. WHICH IS DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT PRODUCT FROM I TS RAW MATERIALS. 7. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS FOL LOWS: (I) IN THE INSTANT CASE THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED THE APP ELLANTS CLAIM MERELY TAKING THE ITEM OF NUTS AND BOLTS / ST UDS CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHAS ED NUTS AND HAD ALSO SOLD THE NUTS AND BOLTS/ STUDS AND HEN CE THERE WAS NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT FIRM. HOWEVER WHILE DOING SO HE HAS MISCONCEIVED T HE FACT THAT NUTS PURCHASED WRE ONLY THE PART OF INPUT IN T HE SALES MADE BY THE APPELLANT FIRM. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD TO SALE ITA NO. 6188/M/08 4 THE PRODUCT AND NUT-BOLTS / STUDS AND NOT THE NUT A LONE AND HENCE THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. THAT THE APPELLAN T HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY ACTIVITIES IS FAR FETCHED IMAGINATI ON ON HIS PART AND REFLECTS ONLY A PARTIAL FACT. FURTHER THE A.O. HAS ALSO MISCONCEIVED THE FACT THAT THE NUTS WHICH WERE RECEIVED AS PURCHASES WERE ALSO NOT FINISHED PRODUCT BUT WER E IN SEMI FINISHED CONDITIONS WHICH WERE FURTHER SUBJECT ED TO FACING DRILLING COUNTER SUNKING SHAPING TAPPING AND THREADING AS PER MATCHING WITH BOLTS / STUDS. (II) FURTHER IT WOULD BE APT TO UNDERSTAND THE MANUFACTU RING PROCESS MORE SO TO UNDERSTAND THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS APPELLANTS LINE OF BUSINESS. IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTED THAT APPELLANT IS THE MANUFACTURER OF NUTS AND BOLT S/STUDS AND HE SELLS THE SAME AS COMBO AND NOT INDIVIDUALLY BUT IN TANDEM WITH EACH OTHER AND THAT BOTH OF THEM SUPPLE MENT EACH OTHER AND WITHOUT ONE THE OTHER WOULD NOT BE O F ANY USE AND THEREFORE WHERE THE APPELLANT MANUFACTURE THE BOLT AND PURCHASE THE SEMI FINISHED GOODS THE SAID BOLTS WOULD BECOME AN INPUT TO THE ENTIRE MANUFACTURING OF PROD UCT SOLD AND THAT THE SAME WOULD NOT BE SOLD INDEPENDENTLY W ITHOUT THE OTHER THIS VITAL FACT HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE A.O. WHILE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT APPELLANT HAD NOT CAR RIED OUT ANY MANUFACTURING PROCESS. THESE FACTS WERE ALSO EX PLAINED TO THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS ALONG WITH THE SAMPLES OF THE ITEMS PURCHASED AS WE LL AS SOLD TO EXPLAIN THE CORRECT POSITION OF APPELLANTS CASE ON FACTUAL MATRIX. HOWEVER THE A.O. IGNORED THE SAME. FURTHER THE A.O. HAS ALSO MISGUIDED HIMSELF BY TAKING THE P LEA THAT SOME OF THE PARTIES DID NOT ATTEND BEFORE HIM. IT W OULD BE ITA NO. 6188/M/08 5 INAPT TO SAY THAT MERELY BECAUSE SOME OF THE PARTY DID NOT ATTEND BEFORE THE A.O. THE APPELLANTS BUSINESS WAS NOT GENUINE. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF VARIOUS INVOICES OF SALES AND PURCHASES FOR READY R EFERENCE AND RECORD WHICH WOULD GIVE CLEAR PICTURE AS TO APP ELLANTS SALES AND PURCHASES. FURTHER THE APPELLANT ALSO FUR NISHED COPIES OF CONFIRMATIONS RECEIVED FOR THE PARTIES CO NFIRMING THE SALES AND PURCHASES IN THIS REGARD. (III) THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ENCYCLOPEDIA ON NUTS AND BOLTS / STUDS SPECIFIES VARIOUS METHODS AND TYP ES OF NUTS AND BOLTS / STUDS WHICH ARE MANUFACTURED BY TH E APPELLANT. (IV) THE AR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOV E TECHNICALITIES AND MECHANICAL APPLICATION THE APPE LLANT CLAIMED THAT WHEN HE PURCHASED RAW MATERIALS AND SE MI- FINISHED NUTS TO ARRIVE AT THE END RESULT I.E. MANU FACTURED GOODS NAMELY NUTS AND BOLTS ETC. EVEN THREADING A S PER THE STANDARD IN ITSELF IS A JOB OR AN ACTIVITY WHICH NE EDS EXACT SPECIFICATION SO THAT THE COMBO PRODUCT COULD BE SO LD AS A NEW AND DISTINCT ITEM FROM THE RAW MATERIALS CONSUM ED. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF MANUFACTU RING HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WOULD ALSO BE APT TO REF ER TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DY. CST VS. PIO FOOD PACKERS (1980) 46 STC 63 (SC) WHEREIN THE FOLL OWING TEST HAVE BEEN FORMULATED BY THE APEX COURT. (V) THE AR AGAIN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A ) THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE TEST THE APPELLANT STATED THAT IN HIS CASE IT ITA NO. 6188/M/08 6 WOULD BE RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT WHAT IS RECEIVED BY WAY OF PURCHASE WAS CONSUMED IN MAKING THE FINAL PRODUCT A ND THEREFORE THE SAME LOOSES ITS ORIGINALITY / IDENTIT Y NOT ONLY IN COMMERCIAL TERMS BUT ALSO IN ITS PHYSICAL AND APPLI CATION FORM. THE WORD MANUFACTURING PROCESS HAS NOT BEEN D EFINED IN THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD BE UNDERST OOD TAKING THE CUE FROM THE COMMERCIAL TERMS WHERE THE RAW MATERIAL WHICH IS SUBJECTED TO PROCESS LOOSES ITS I DENTITY LEADING TO MANUFACTURE AND IF THE SAME IS APPLIED H ERE IN THE INSTANT CASE IT WILL BE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELL ANT HAS PURCHASED IRON RODS AND ROUNDS AND IN SOME CASES SE MI FINISHED NUTS WHICH ARE SUBJECTED TO FURTHER PROCES S AS MENTIONED ABOVE AND THE FINISHED PRODUCT WHICH IS P RODUCED IS DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT IN ALL RESPECT AND THEREF ORE THE APPELLANTS CASE IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND IS EL IGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. THE AR RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF N.C. BUDHIRAJA 204 ITR 412. (VI) RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. J.B. KHARWAR & SONS (1987) 163 ITR 394 (GUJ) THE APPELLANT SUBMITT ED THAT TO CONSTITUTE MANUFACTURE IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT ONE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY MAKE OUT A NEW THING BECAUSE IT I S WELL SETTLED THAT ONE CANNOT ABSOLUTELY MAKE A THING BY HAND IN THE SENSE THAT NOBODY CAN CREATE MATTER BY HAND IT IS THE TRANSFORMATION OF MATTER INTO SOMETHING ELSE. THAT SOMETHING ELSE IS A QUESTION OF DEGREE WHETHER THA T SOMETHING ELSE IS A DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL COMMODITY HAVING ITS DISTINCT CHARACTER AS SUCH. IN OTHER WORDS IF BY APPLICATION OF LABOUR AND SKILL AN OBJECT IS TRANSF ORMED TO ITA NO. 6188/M/08 7 THE EXTENT THAT ITS COMMERCIALLY KNOWN DIFFERENTLY IT WILL SUFFICE TO SAY THAT MANUFACTURE HAS TAKEN PLACE. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION FACTS OF THE C ASE ON RECORD AND ALSO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON REASONABLE CONSIDERATION OF FACTS I HAVE FOUND THAT IN THE CASE OF THE APPEL LANT WHAT IS PURCHASED AS RAW MATERIAL / SEMI FINISHED PRODUCTS WERE CONSUMED IN MAKING THE FINAL PRODUCT WHICH IS DISTINCT AND D IFFERENT FROM THE RAW MATERIALS / SEMI FINISHED PRODUCTS CONSUMED. RE LYING IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. PIO FOOD PACKESRS 46 STC 63 (SC) I HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE GOODS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT WERE CONS UMED AND THE CONSUMPTION WAS IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE LEADI NG TO MANUFACTURE OF NEW PRODUCT WHICH IS DISTINCT FROM T HE GOODS PURCHASED. THE APPELLANT IN HIS SUBMISSION HAS ELAB ORATELY APPLIED THE TECHNICALITIES AND MECHANICAL OPERATION TO EXHI BIT THAT HE IS MANUFACTURING NUTS AND BOLTS STUDS ASTM STANDARDS ETC. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT WHATEVER RAW MATE RIALS WERE PURCHASED WERE TRANSFORMED INTO A NEW PRODUCT WHICH IS COMMERCIALLY KNOWN AS SUCH. THUS THE MOMENT THERE I S A TRANSFORMATION OF RAW MATERIALS INTO A NEW COMMODIT Y HAVING ITS OWN CHARACTER USE AND NAME WHETHER IT BE THE RESUL T OF ONE PROCESS OR SEVERAL PROCESSES MANUFACTURE TAKES PLACE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I CONSIDER THE APPELLANTS ACT IVITY AS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE I.T. ACT. I HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE A.O. HAS NO T DISPUTED THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE APPELLANT. IN FACT HE HAS ACCEPTED T HE TOTAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. ACC ORDINGLY I DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S.80IB TO THE APPELLANT AS CLAIMED. 9. AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI HARI GOVIND SINGH RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT TH ERE IS NO NEW PRODUCT DISTINCT FROM THE ORIGINAL COMMODITY WHICH COME INT O EXISTENCE. THUS THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE TERMED AS MANUFACT URE. FURTHER THE ORIGINAL COMMODITY I.E. NUTS BOLTS & STUDS ARE CON SUMED IN THE MAKING ITA NO. 6188/M/08 8 OF ANOTHER SMALLER NUTS BOLTS AND STUDS. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT IT IS MADE PRESENTABLE FOR MARKETING. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS: NUTS PURCHASED WERE ONLY THE PART OF INPUT IN THE SALES MADE BY THE APPELLANT FIRM SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD TO SA LE THE PRODUCT AS NUT-BOLTS/STUDS AND NOT THE NUT ALONE AND HENCE THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY A CTIVITIES IS FAR FETCHED IMAGINATION ON HIS PART AND REFLECTS ONLY A PARTIAL FACTS. FURTHER AO HAS ALSO MISCONCEIVED THE FACT THAT THE NUTS WHICH WERE RECEIVED AS PURCHASES WERE ALSO NOT FINISHED PRODUC T BUT WERE IN SEMI FINISHED CONDITIONS WHICH WERE FURTHER SUBJECT TO FACING DRILLING COUNTER SUNKING SHAPING TAPPING AND THR EADING AS TO MATCH WITH BOLTS/STUDS. FURTHER IT WOULD BE APT TO UNDERSTAND THE MANUFACTU RING PROCESS MORE SO TO UNDERSTAND THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS APPELLANTS LINE OF BUSINESS. IN THIS REGARD IT I S SUBMITTED THAT APPELLANT IS THE MANUFACTURER OF NUTS AND BOLTS/STU DS AND HE SELLS THE SAME AS COMBO AND NOT INDIVIDUALLY BUT IN TANDE M WITH EACH OTHER AND THAT BOTH OF THEM SUPPLEMENT EACH OTHER A ND WITHOUT ONE THE OTHER WOULD NOT BE OF ANY USE AND THEREFORE WHE RE THE APPELLANT MANUFACTURES THE BOLT AND PURCHASES THE SEMI FINISH ED GOODS THE SAID NUTS WOULD BECOME INPUT THE ENTIRE MANUFACTURI NG PROCESS THAT THE SAME WOULD NOT BE SOLD INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT T HE OTHER THIS VITAL FACT HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE AO WHILE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT APPELLANT HAD NOT EARNED OUT ANY MANUFACTURING PROCESS. 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DY. CST VS PIO FOOD PACKERS (1 980) 46 STC 63 AND THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO UDA IPUR VS M/S. ARIHANT TILES & MARBLES (P) LTD. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8036 O F 2009 AND CIT VS TAMIL NADU HEAT TREATMENT & FETTING SERVICES (P) LT D. 238 ITR 540. LD. COUNSEL ALSO FILED BULKY PAPER BOOK BRINGING OUT TH E MANUFACTURING PROCESS WITH THE HELP OF DIAGRAM. ITA NO. 6188/M/08 9 13. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS PURCHASED IRON RODS AND ROUNDS AND IN SOME CASES S EMI FINISHED NUT WHICH ARE UNTHREADED AND SEMI PROCESSED WHICH ARE SUBJECTED TO FURTHER PROCESS AND THE FINISHED PRODUCT WHICH IS P RODUCED IS DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT IN ALL RESPECT AND THEREFORE THE ASSES SEES CASE IS CLEARLY ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT. 14. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF MARCH 2011 SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL ) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 25 TH MARCH 2011 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR B BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T MUMBAI ITA NO. 6188/M/08 10 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 2 . 0 3 .201 1 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 2 .0 3 .2011 ______ 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. 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR _________ ______ 10 . DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______