DCIT 9(3), MUMBAI v. RENOIR CONSULTING (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3257/MUM/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 325719914 RSA 2009
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 3257/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant DCIT 9(3), MUMBAI
Respondent RENOIR CONSULTING (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 28-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 23-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 23-03-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 15-05-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAG HAVAN (JM) ITA NO. 3257/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2004-05 THE DCIT 9(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 VS. RENOIR CONSULTING (I) PVT. LTD. LEVEL 2 RAHEJA CENTRE POINT 294 CST ROAD OFF BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX SANTACRUZ (E) MUMBAI-400 098 PAN-AAACR4920K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI T.T. JACOB RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SUNIL MANDLOI O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DT. 11.2.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-C-I MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS FOLLOW S: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING PENALTY OF RS.3 21 932/- LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WITHOUT APPRE CIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME WITH RESPECT TO BOOK PROFIT OF RS.41 87 741/- CHARG EABLE U/S 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT ASSES SEE HAS DELIBERATELY/ KNOWINGLY OMITTED THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME U/S ITA NO. 3257/M/09 2 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 EVEN THOUGH ALL T HE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WERE VERY WELL KNOWN TO THE A SSESSEE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED THE REPORT IN FORM NO.29B WORKING OUT THE BOOK PROFIT U /S 115JB ONLY WHEN REQUIRED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MEANING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT OF RS .42 03 085/- AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 3 1.3.2004. THE PROFIT HAS BEEN SET OFF AGAINST CARRIED FORWARD BUSINESS L OSS OF EARLIER YEARS AND TAXABLE INCOME IS SHOWN AT RS. NIL. THE AO FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD NOT WORKED OUT BOOK PROFIT UND ER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 115JB OF THE I.T. ACT. HE FURTHER HELD THA T AS LAID DOWN IN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 115JB BOOK PROFIT HAS TO BE COM PUTED BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD OR UNABSORBED DE PRECIATION WHICHEVER IS LESS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GOT BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 70 86 486 /- AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 15 344/-. BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115 JN WAS ACCORDINGLY DETERMINED AT RS. 41 87 741/- AND PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS U/S. 271(1) BY THE AO WERE INITIATED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OF INCOME. 4. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE LETTER DT. 2.4.2007 T HE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MADE THE SUBMISSIONS BY LETTER DT. 25.8.2007. THE AO HELD IN THE ORDER U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AS FOL LOWS: IN THE RETURN FILED TOTAL INCOME IS COMPUTED AT NI L AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF CARRIED FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS FROM EA RLIER YEARS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 271 (1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB ARE APPLICABLE EVEN IF TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IS NIL. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO COMPUTE BOO K PROFIT AND PAY TAX THEREON AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB. SEC TION 115JB (1) LAYS DOWN THAT WHERE IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BE ING A COMPANY ITA NO. 3257/M/09 3 THE INCOME TAX PAYABLE ON THE TOTAL INCOME IS LESS THAN SEVEN AND ONE HALF PERCENT OF ITS BOOK PROFIT SUCH BOOK PROF IT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND TOTAL TA X PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE ON SUCH TOTAL INCOME SHALL BE THE AMOUNT O F INCOME TAX AT THE RATE OF SEVEN AND ONE HALF PERCENT. THE ASSESS EE COMPANY HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB A S CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THEM. THEY HAVE NOT OFFERED INCOME ( I.E. BOOK PROFIT) FOR TAXATION NOR PAID TAX AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILE D TO SUBSTANTIATE FOR NON ADHERENCE TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A RE PORT U/S 115JB DATED 3.9.2004 IN FORM NO.29B ONLY AFTER THE ASSESS EE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN FOR THE SAME VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DAT ED 20.11.2006. 5. THE AO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE KERALA HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS K.P.MADHUSUDHANAN (246 ITR 218) IN COMIN G TO CONCLUSION THAT EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC 271(1)(C) REVEALS PRESUMP TION OF CONCEALMENT. THE AO WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHE D INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND IS THEREFORE LIABLE TO PEN ALTY UNDER THIS SECTION. HE LEVIED THE MINIMUM PENALTY OF RS. 3 21 932/- 6. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THOU GH THE ASSESSEE HAD NET PROFIT OF RS.42 03 085/- AS PER P & L A/C. THE SAME HAS BEEN SET OFF AGAINST BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRE CIATION AND TAXABLE INCOME HAD BEEN REDUCED AT NIL FIGURE. THE AR FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB ARE APPLICABLE IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BUT DUE TO MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SEES CA THE WORKING OF BOOK PROFIT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB DUE TO OVER SIGHT COULD NOT BE COMPUTED AND NOT OFFERED FOR TAX ATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MISTAKE H AD HAPPENED IN THE CAS OFFICE AND THE OMISSION AND NEGLIGENCE AS NOTI CED WAS GENUINE AND INADVERTENT AND THERE WAS NO WILLFUL OR DELIBERATE ACT AT LEAST ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. THE AR FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT IT ITA NO. 3257/M/09 4 WAS THE AR WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HAVE ANY QUALIFIED CA ON ITS PAY RO LL. 7. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD D ISCLOSED ALL THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF BOOK PROFIT IN THE AUDITED STATEMENT PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET AND THE S AME HAS BEEN ATTACHED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 115JB IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED BASED ON THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS. BESIDES NO FURTHER ADDITION HAS BEEN M ADE BY THE AO OTHER THAN THE PROFIT AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P & L ACCOUNT. HENCE THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AS SUCH. THE ASSE SSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT BOOK PROFIT HAS BEEN SHOWN CORRECTLY AND IT WA S ONLY OMISSION BEING NON CALCULATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB AND THAT I T WAS A BONAFIDE MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEES CA WHICH OCCU RRED DUE TO HEAVY WORK PRESSURE ON LAST DATE WHEN THE ASSESSEES RETU RN WAS FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEES AR RELIED ON THE JUDGME NT OF THE HON. SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF V/S JC IT AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 271(1)(C) ON THE BASIS OF RULING GIVEN BY T HE HON. HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S K.P. MADHUSUDANAN AS THE FACT OF THE CASE ARE DIFFERENT AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO WILLFUL CONCEAL MENT OF INCOME TO AVOID TAX OR DEFRAUD REVENUE BECAUSE U/S 115JB THE TAX CREDIT IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO SET OFF ITS FUTURE TAX LIABILITY AGAINST MAT PROFIT. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD FURNISHED THE REQUIRED R EPORT U/S 115JB AND PAID TAX AS PAYABLE. THEREFORE THE AR PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO PENALTY. 8. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY OBSERVING AS UNDER: ITA NO. 3257/M/09 5 2.4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE REASONING O F THE AO AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANTS A R IN ITS SUBMISSION HAS MADE OUT IT CASE THAT DUE TO HEAVY W ORK PRESSURE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN THE REPORT AS REQUIRED U/S 115JB COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED AND AS SUCH THE APPELLANT COULD NOT P AY THE TAX LIABILITY. IN FACT THERE APPEARS TO BE NO OMISSIO N/NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT AND IT WAS MAINLY DUE TO OMIS SION AND NEGLIGENCE OF THE APPELLANTS CA WHO ARE GENERALLY ENTRUSTED WITH THE WORK OF FILING THE TAX RETURN OF THE APPELLANT. ONCE IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ABOUT ITS LIABILITY U/S 115JB THE APPEL LANT HAD FILED THE REQUIRED REPORT AND PAID THE TAXES. BESIDES IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT TAX LIABILITY AS WORKED OUT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 115JB IN FACT IS POSTPONEMENT OF TAX LIABILITY OF THE APPELLANT AS THE APPELLANT GETS CREDIT FOR THE TAXES PAID AGAINST THE FUTURE L IABILITY WHENEVER THERE IS A POSTPONEMENT OF INCOME IN SUBSEQUENT AS SESSMENT YEAR. IT IS NOT A CASE OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAD F URNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALED PARTICULARS WHICH HAD EFFE CT OF INCREASING ITS INCOME AND THEREBY TAX LIABILITY OF THE APPELLA NT IS ENHANCED. THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT AS PUT FORTH. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT WAS A BONAFIDE MI STAKE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT FOR NOT ENCLOSING THE COMPUTATION OF TAX LIABILITY U/S 115JB AND HENCE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT WARRANT LEVY O F PENALTY U/S 271(1). ACCORDINGLY I HOLD THAT THE AO IS NOT JU STIFIED TO LEVY PENALTY ON THE APPELLANT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND PENALTY AS LEVIED IS CANCELLED. THE ASSE SSEE SUCCEEDS ON ITS GROUND OF APPEAL. 9. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED BEFORE US THAT IT HAS DISCLOSED ALL PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPE CT OF BOOK PROFIT CORRECTLY AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BOOK PROFIT D ETAILS OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS AVAIL ABLE ON THE RECORDS AND TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S 44AB ALSO CONTAINS THE ABO VE FACTUAL DETAILS. HOWEVER DUE TO OVERSIGHT THE WORKING OF BOOK PROF IT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB COULD NOT BE ATTACHED WHICH WAS GENUI NE OMISSION AND ITA NO. 3257/M/09 6 NOT WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE ACT ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS ON THE ISSUE. 11. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 115JB WHICH WERE CLEARLY APPLICABLE AND THEY HAVE NEITHER OFFER ED INCOME NOR PAID THE TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE A CT. IT WAS ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE F URNISHED A REPORT U/S 115JB IN FORM NO.29B WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKE D TO EXPLAIN THE ISSUE OF NOT FILING OF REQUIRED REPORT U/S 115JB. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD CORRECTLY LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SEC TION 271(1)(C). 12. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN WITHOUT COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE MISTAKE HAD HAPPENED IN THE CAS OFFICE AND THE OMI SSION AND NEGLIGENCE AS NOTICED WAS GENUINE AND INADVERTENT AND THERE WA S NO WILLFUL OR DELIBERATE ACT AT LEAST ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS THE CA WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HAVE A NY QUALIFIED CA ON ITS PAY ROLL. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ALL THE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF BOOK PROFIT IN THE AUDITED STATEMENT PRO FIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ATTACHED AL ONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 1 15JB IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED BASED ON THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS. BESIDES NO FURTHER ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO OTHER THAN THE PROFIT AS DI SCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P & L ACCOUNT. HENCE THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 13. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. S.DHANABAN [(2009) 309 ITR 268 (DEL.)] HAS ALSO CANCELLED THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) WHICH WAS ITA NO. 3257/M/09 7 IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF HIGHER CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED CLAIM ON THE BAS IS OF INCORRECT ADVISE GIVEN BY HIS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. SIMILAR VIEW WAS EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEEP TOURS PRIVATE LIMITED [(2005) 274 ITR 603 (P&H)] . 14. THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.TEKSONS COOLING SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO.7128/MU M/06 IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24.3.2009 DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S.271(1)(C) ON ACCOUNT OF REDUCTION IN THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA WHICH WAS BASED ON THE REPORT OF THE AUDITOR. 15. FURTHER THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD (322 ITR 158) HAS HELD THAT I N ORDER TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 271(1)(C) THERE HAS TO BE CONCEA LMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND S. 271 (1) (C) PENALTY CANNOT BE IM POSED. THE APEX COURT CONSIDERED DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS (306 ITR 277 SC) AND DILIP SHROFF AND HELD THAT THE WORDS CONCEAL AND INACCURATE CONTINUOUS TO BE GOOD LAW FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AND EXPLAINED THAT WHAT WAS OVERRULED IN DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS WAS ONLY THAT PART IN DILIP SHROFFS CA SE WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT MENS REA WAS AN ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT FOR PEN ALTY U/S. 271(1)(C). 16. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE BOOK PROFITS ALONG WITH THE RETURN AND HAD NOT CONCEALED ANYTHING WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR COMPUTATION OF THE BOOK PROFITS. NO IN FORMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INACCURATE AS THE BOOK PROFITS FINALLY DETERMINED IS ON THE BASIS OF FIGURES AVAILABLE IN THE PRINTED ACCOUNTS. THUS THE MISTAKE OF ITA NO. 3257/M/09 8 THE ASSESSEE IN NOT COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS IS A N INADVERTENT ERROR. THE ASSESSEE FILING THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND P &L ACCOUNT HAS GIVING ALL THE PARTICULARS FOR DETERMINING THE BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FAILURE TO COMPUTE THE BOOK PROFITS IS ONLY AN INADVERTENT OMISSION AND ALL THE MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPUTING THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE RETURN. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX CO URT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 17. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF MAY 2010 SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) ( ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 28 TH MAY 2010 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR D BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T MUMBAI ITA NO. 3257/M/09 9 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 11.5.2010 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 14.5.2010 ______ 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: _________ ______