ACIT CEN. 21(3), MUMBAI v. M/s. RAY CONSTRUCITON, MUMBAI

ITSSA 359/MUM/2003 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 35919916 RSA 2003
Assessee PAN AABFR0218E
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITSSA 359/MUM/2003
Duration Of Justice 7 year(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant ACIT CEN. 21(3), MUMBAI
Respondent M/s. RAY CONSTRUCITON, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted J
Tribunal Order Date 07-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 19-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 19-04-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 05-05-2003
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH J : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL (JM) AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMA R (AM) IT(SS)A NO.359/MUM/2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR : BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1989 TO 5.1.2000 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-21(3) PRATYAKSH KAR BHAVAN C-11 5 TH FLOOR BKC BANDRA (E) MUMBAI-400 051. ..( APPELLANT ) VS. M/S. RAY CONSTRUCTION POST I.I.T. POWAI MUMBAI-400 076. ..( RESPONDENT ) P.A. NO. (AABFR 0218 E) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.K. BALODIA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SA TISH R. MODY O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL (JM). THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2003 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR PERTAINING TO THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.89 TO 5.1.20 00. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A PARTNERSHIP CONCERN ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTR UCTION. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S.132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(THE IT(SS)A NO.359/M/2003 A.Y:BP 2 ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE RAY CONSTRUCTIONS GROUP ON 5. 1.2000. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S.158 BC ON 2.2.2000 THE ASSE SSEE FILED RETURN FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON 5.6.2000 DECLARING UND ISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.4 01 60 444/-. THE AO ISSUED STATUTORY NOTICES U/ S.142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE ON 9.10.2 001. THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATIONS AND MATERIAL AVAILA BLE ON RECORD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.16 14 36 010/- VIDE ORDER DATED 28.3.2002 PASSED U/ S.158 BC OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING SUB STANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE KEPT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.4 21 57 9 31/-. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) T HE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US CHALLENGING IN ALL THE GROUNDS NO.I TO XIV THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. BY APPLICATION DATED 31.8.2006 THE ASSESSEE MADE A RE QUEST UNDER RULE 27 OF THE INCOME TAX ( APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ) RULES TO ADMIT FOLLOWING GROUND:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S.158 BC OF THE I .T. ACT 1961 IS BAD IN LAW AS IT IS PASSED BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD PRESCRIBED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158 BE OF THE I.T. 1961. IT(SS)A NO.359/M/2003 A.Y:BP 3 5. BY ANOTHER APPLICATION DATED 4.12.2007 UNDER RULE 27 OF THE INCOME TAX ( APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES THE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST TO ADMIT FOLLOWING GROUND:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE BLOCK P ERIOD IS INVALID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS THE NOTICE U/S.143(2) HAS BEEN ISSUED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE BLOC K RETURNS WERE FILED. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT FOR THE REASONS AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. HE THEREFOR E SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO BE RESTORED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND AT THE OUTSET THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE PRESSING THE ADMISSION OF THE GROUND RAISED VIDE APPLICATION DATED 4.12.2007 SUBMITS THAT THE SAID GROU ND IS A PURE QUESTION OF LAW AND NO NEW FACTS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD THEREFORE THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED AND FOR THIS PROP OSITION THE RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES:- 1) B.R. BAMASI VS. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 223(BOM.) 2) HUKUMCHAND MILLS LTD. VS. CIT( 1967) 63 ITR 232 (SC) 3) ASSAM COMPANY (INDIA)LTD. VS. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 423(G AU.) IT(SS)A NO.359/M/2003 A.Y:BP 4 HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE NOTICE U/S.143(2) HAS BEEN ISSUED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE BLOCK RETURN WAS FILED NOW STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE RECENT DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ACIT A ND ANOTHER VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF TH E SAID JUDGMENT. HE THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 8. IN THE REJOINDER THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE REITERATES HIS EARLIER SUBMISSIONS. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RI VAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FIELD ANY CROSS OBJECTION OR APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE FURTH ER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL VIDE AN APPLICATION DAT ED 4.12.2007 HAS RAISED A GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE B LOCK PERIOD IS INVALID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS THE NOTICE U/S.143 (2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE BLOCK RETURN WAS FILED. IT WAS CONTE NDED THAT THE SAID GROUND IS A PURE QUESTION OF LAW AND NO NEW FACTS H AVE TO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE SAID GROUND MAY BE IT(SS)A NO.359/M/2003 A.Y:BP 5 ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED AS THE SAME GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FACTS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD INASMUCH AS IN THE FIRST PA RA OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE RETURN FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WAS FILED ON 5.6.2000 AND A QUESTIONNAIRE W AS ISSUED ON 9.10.2001 ALONG WITH NOTICES U/S.142(1) AND 143(2). THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN B.R. BAMASI (SUPRA) HAS HE LD (PAGE-225 HEADNOTE): HELD (I) THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A VOLUNTARY RETURN FOR THE YEAR 1947-48 THE NOTICE U NDER SECTION 34(1)(A) WAS WRONGLY ISSUED AND THE PROCEED INGS IN PURSUANCE THEREOF WERE INVALID; AND (II) THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RAISE A NEW GROUND PROVIDED IT IS A GROUND OF LAW AND DOES NOT NECESSITATE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO BE RECORDED THE NATURE OF WHICH WOULD NOT ONLY BE A DEFENCE TO THE APPEAL ITSELF BUT MAY ALSO AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IF THE GROUND SUCCEEDS THE ONLY RESUL T WOULD BE THAT THE APPEAL WOULD FAIL. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GROUND WOULD SHOW THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INVALID BUT YET THE TRIBUNAL WHIC H HEARS THE APPEAL WOULD HAVE NO POWER TO DISTURB OR TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THAT OR DER WOULD STAND AND WOULD HAVE FULL EFFECT IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT. THE GROUND WOULD SERVE ONLY AS A WEAPON OF DEFENCE AGAINST THE APPEAL. HENCE THE REF USAL OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE IT THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE AND ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 34 WHILE CONSIDERING THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AP PELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW. IT(SS)A NO.359/M/2003 A.Y:BP 6 10. IN ASSAM COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. SUPRA THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN HUKUMCHAND MILLS LTD. VS. CIT (1967) 63 I TR 232(SC) WAS NOTED AND CONSIDERED AS UNDER (PAGE 434 OF 256 ITR ): IN THE DECISION REPORTED IN HUKUMCHAND MILLS LTD. V . CIT [1967]63ITR232 THE APEX COURT WAS SEIZED OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS COMPETENT TO GO INTO THE QUESTION IF THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF TH E TAXATION LAWS (PART B STATES) (REMOVAL OF DIFFICULT IES) ORDER 1950 WERE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THAT CASE AND WHETHER THE RESPONDENT THEREIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO RAISE THE CONTENTION FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE M ATTER RELATED TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CALCULATING THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 10(2)(VI) OF THE ACT. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEING REJECTED BY THE I NCOME-TAX OFFICER AND THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER THE ASSESSEE WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS IN THAT APPEAL THAT THE DEPARTMENT/REVENUE RAISED THE PLEA THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF PARAGRAPH - 2 OF THE TAXATION LAWS (PART B STATES) (REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES) ORDER 1950 WERE APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE AND CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DEPREC IATION ALLOW-ABLE UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL TAX RULES WERE REQU IRED TO BE DEDUCTED IN ARRIVING AT THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL PERMITTED HIS CONTENTION TO BE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ON AN OBJECTION BEING RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH CONTENTION COULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED UNLESS IT WAS FOUND AS A FACT THAT THE DEPRECIATION WAS ACTUALLY ALLOWABLE UNDER THE INDUS-TRIAL TAX RULES TO THE ASSESSEE AND UNLESS TH E INDUSTRIAL TAX RULES WERE RULES WHICH RELATED TO INCOME- TAX OR SUPER-TAX OR ANY LAW RELATING TO TAX ON PROFITS OF BUSINESS THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL ON HEARING THE PARTI ES REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ANY DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWABLE UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL TAX RULES AND FURTHER FOR CONSIDERING THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SAID RULES RELATED TO INCOME-T AX OR SUPER - TAX OR ANY LAW RELATING TO TAX ON PROFITS OF BUSINESS WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION THAT IF HE DECIDED THE QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT HE SHOULD TAKE IN TO CONSIDERATION SUCH DEPRECIATION ACTUALLY ALLOWED UNDER THE SAID RULES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE. REFERRING TO SECTION 33(4)OF THE ACT AND OBSERVING THAT THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DEALING WITH THE APPEALS IT(SS)A NO.359/M/2003 A.Y:BP 7 ARE IN THE WIDEST POSSIBLE TERMS THE APEX COURT OBSERVED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD THE JURISDICTION TO PERMIT THE QUESTION TO BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN APPEAL. INTERPRETING THE EXPRESSION SUCH ORDER AS THE TRIB UNAL THINKS FIT CONTAINED IN SECTION 33(4) OF THE ACT THE APEX COURT OBSERVED THAT THE SAME INCLUDES ALL T HE POWERS (EXCEPT POSSIBLY THE POWER OF ENHANCEMENT) WHICH AR E CONFERRED UPON THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BY SECTION 31 OF THE ACT AND HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD THE AUTHORITY UNDER THAT SECTION TO DIRECT THE APPELLAT E ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OR THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER TO HOLD A FURTHER ENQUIRY AND DISPOSE OF THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ENQUIRY. IT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BEING AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE PROPER WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE BUILDINGS MACHINERY ETC. OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CALCULATING THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 10(2)(VI) OF THE ACT IT WAS OPEN TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO SUPPORT THE FINDING S OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COM-MISSIONER WITH REGARD TO THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE ON ANY OF THE GROUNDS DECIDED AGAINST IT. REFERRING TO RULES 12 AND 27 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES WITH REGARD TO THE SCOPE AVAILABLE TO THE APP ELLANT AS WELL AS THE RESPONDENT TO URGE GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE APEX C OUR T OBSERVED THAT THE RULES WERE MERELY PROCEDURAL IN CHARACTER AND DID NOT IN ANY WAY CIRCUMSCRIBE OR CONTROL THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 33(4) OF THE ACT. 11. IN ASSAM COMPANY (INDIA) LTD. SUPRA IT HAS BEEN H ELD (PAGE- 439 OF ITR) : ..WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS PERMIS SIBLE ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ENTERTAIN A GROUND B EYOND THOSE INCORPORATED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL THOUGH THE PARTY URGING THE SAID GROUND HAD NEITHER APPEALED BEFORE IT NOR HAD FILED A CROSS-OBJECTION IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY. WE MUST HOWEVER HA STEN TO ADD THAT IN ORDER TO ENABLE EITHER THE ASSESSEE OR THE DEPARTMENT TO URGE A GROUND IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE OTHER SIDE THE RELEVANT FACTS ON WHICH SUCH GROUND IS TO BE FOUNDED SHOULD BE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE AB SENCE OF SUCH PRIMARY FACTS IN OUR OPINION NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE DEPARTMENT CAN BE PERMITTED TO URGE ANY GRO UND OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH ARE INCORPORATED IN THE IT(SS)A NO.359/M/2003 A.Y:BP 8 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY. IN OTHER WORDS IF THE ASSESSEE OR THE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT FILING ANY APPEAL OR A CROSS-OBJECTION SEEKS TO URGE A GRO UND OTHER THAN THE GROUNDS INCORPORATED IN TH E MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE OTHER SIDE THE EVIDENTIARY FACTS IN SUPPORT OF NEW GROUND MUST BE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 12. SINCE THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LEGAL GROUND RELEVANT FACTS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECO RD AND IT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE WE FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS ADMIT THE A BOVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING A LEGAL GROUND. 13. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA. IN ASSTT. CIT VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON SINCE REPORTED IN (2010) 321 ITR 362(SC) IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THEIR LO RDSHIPS ( HEAD- NOTE AT PAGE 363 OF 321 ITR): SECTION 158BC PROVIDES FOR ENQUIRY AND ASSESSMENT. AFTER THE RETURN IS FILED CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 15 8BC PROVIDES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED T O DETERMINE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIO D IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN IN SECTION 158BB AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142 SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 143 SECTION 144 AND SECTION 145 SHALL SO FAR AS MAY BE APPLY. THIS INDICATES THAT THIS CLAUSE E NABLES THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER THE RETURN IS FILED T O COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(2) BY FOLLOWING TH E PROCEDURE LIKE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) /142. THIS DOES NOT PROVIDE ACCEPTING THE RETURN AS PROVI DED UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) : THE OFFICER HAS TO COMPLE TE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) ONLY. IF AN ASSESS MENT IS TO BE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH S ECTION 158BC NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) SHOULD BE ISSUED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE BLOC K RETURN. OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE IT(SS)A NO.359/M/2003 A.Y:BP 9 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) CANNOT BE A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AND IS NOT CURABLE. THEREFORE THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) CANNOT B E DISPENSED WITH. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL OR DECISION PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AUTHORI TATIVE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT HOLD THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO U/S.143(2)/142(1) ARE BEYOND THE STATUTORY PERIOD AS THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE BLOCK RETURN WAS FILED. ACCORDINGLY THE GR OUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. HOWEVER KEEPING IN VIEW THE P RINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THEIR LORDSHIPS IN THE CASE OF B.R. BAMSI SUPRA THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS UPHELD. THIS BEING SO AND KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E AND AGAINST THE REVENUE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENU E IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE NOT ADJUDICATED AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME AR E REJECTED. 14. IN THE RESULT THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7.5.2010. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ( D.K. AGARWAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 7.5.2010. JV. IT(SS)A NO.359/M/2003 A.Y:BP 10 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT CONCERNED MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 19.4.10 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 20.4.10 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 7.5.10 SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 11.5.10 SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER