DCIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Brakes India Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1166/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57791 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Additional depreciation; Permanent establishment
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NOS. 249 & 1166/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2006-07 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, CHENNAI. V. M/S. BRAKES INDIA LTD., PADI, CHENNAI-600 050. [PAN: AAACB2533Q] A N D I.T.A. NO. 1069/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. BRAKES INDIA LTD., V. THE DY. COM MISSIONER OF PADI, CHENNAI-600 050. INCOME-TAX, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, CHENNAI. (APPELLANTS) (RESPNDENTS) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 05-01-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/01/201 2 I.T.A. NOS. 249, 1069 & 1166/MDS/2010 2 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA NO. 249/MDS/2010 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF TH E LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 30/08-09/LTU(A) D ATED 30-11-2009. ITA NO. 1166/MDS/2010 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, CHENNAI IN ITA N O. 27/09-10/LTU(A) DATED 19- 04-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ITA NO. 1 069/MDS/2010 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEAR NED CIT(APPEALS), LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 27/09-10 DATED 19-04-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. ALL THE THREE APPEALS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSES SEE AND INVOLVE IDENTICAL ISSUES, ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL REP RESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE REPRES ENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED JR. STANDING COU NSEL THAT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 249/MDS/2009 THE FIRST ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UN DER SECTION 35(2AB) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXCESS WEIGHTED DEDUCTION. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE AUTOMOBI LE INDUSTRY WAS NOTIFIED AS AN I.T.A. NOS. 249, 1069 & 1166/MDS/2010 3 ELIGIBLE INDUSTRY ONLY WITH EFFECT FROM 21-09-2004 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35(2AB) WAS DENIED IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 21- 09-2004. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CI T(A) HAD DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'B LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. CLARIS LIFE SCIENCE REPORTED IN 174 TAXMA N 135 (GUJ). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THE NOTIFICATION WAS ISSUED ONLY ON 21-09-2004, THE DEDUCTION FOR THE PERIOD EARLIER TO THE SAID DATE COULD NOT B E GRANTED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF CIT V. WHEELS INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN 336 ITR 513, WHEREIN THE ISSUE HAD BEEN HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ISSUE IS NOW SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. WHEELS INDIA LTD., REFERRED TO SUPRA, AS ALS O THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CLARIS LIFE SCIEN CE, REFERRED TO SUPRA, THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE STANDS CONFIRME D. 6. IN GROUND NO.3 IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IT WAS TH E SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF POW ER CHARGES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF POWER CHARGES BY RELYING UPON THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER FOR THE I.T.A. NOS. 249, 1069 & 1166/MDS/2010 4 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05. IT WAS THE S UBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE SAME BY FOLLOWING HIS PREDEC ESSORS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05. HOWEVER, IT WAS FAIRLY CONCEDED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT THE ISSUE HAD BEEN RESTORED TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05 IN ITA NOS. 1635/MDS/2007, 2510/MDS/2007 AND 1565/MDS/2008 DATE D 10-06-2011. IT WAS FAIRLY AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT THEY HAD NO OB JECTION IF THE ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATI ON. CONSEQUENTLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05, THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS AS GIVEN IN THE SAID EARLIER ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. IT WAS ALSO A GREED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS THE GROUND NO.1 IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1166/MDS/20 10 ALSO. CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAME FINDING APPLIES TO GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE S APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1166/MDS/2010. 7. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION BY THE LEARNED JR. STANDING COUNSEL THAT GROUND NO.4 IN ITA NO. 249/MDS/2010 WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SUBSCRIPTION CHARGE S. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF ` 14,09,808/- OUT OF THE SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES PAID ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AS THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY I.T.A. NOS. 249, 1069 & 1166/MDS/2010 5 AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. I T WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT ALL THE EXPENDITURES HAD BEEN VOUCHED AND WERE VERIFIABLE A ND WERE ALSO SUBJECT TO AUDIT. THERE WERE NO QUALIFICATIONS OR RESERVATIONS POINTE D OUT BY THE AUDITORS AND THE PAYMENTS WERE INCURRED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEMBERSHIPS IN THE VARIOUS CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INSTITUTIONS AS A MATTER O F BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AS THE MEMBERSHIP ENABLED THE ASSESSEE TO INCREASE ITS BUS INESS RELATIONS AND PROSPECTS. THE LEARNED JR. STANDING COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF T HE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 8. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES REPORTED IN 240 ITR 335 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNDAR AM INDUSTRIES AND AS THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PLACE BEFORE US ANYTHING TO DI SLODGE THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS I SSUE STANDS CONFIRMED. 10. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION BY THE LEARNED JR . STANDING COUNSEL IN REGARD TO GROUND NO.5 THAT THE REVENUE HAD CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) I.T.A. NOS. 249, 1069 & 1166/MDS/2010 6 IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40( A)(I) OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE WAS IDENTICAL TO GROUND N O.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1166/MDS/2010. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE SAID AMOUN T ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TDS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSI ON THAT THE PAYMENT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF MACHINING CHARGES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSIO N THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD ONLY REIMBURSED THE FOREIGN CUSTOMER IN RESPECT OF THE REWORK CHARGES I NCURRED BY THE CUSTOMER OUTSIDE INDIA AS ALSO ON THE GROUND THAT NONE OF THE ENTITI ES TO WHOM PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE DID NOT HAVE A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDI A AND CONSEQUENTLY NO TAX WAS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED. 11. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REIMBURSED THE ACTUAL EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF TH E REPAIRS AND REWORK CHARGES ON THE GOODS EXPORTED OUTSIDE INDIA WHICH WERE FOUN D TO BE DEFECTIVE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE NATURE OF THE WORK WAS ONLY JOB WORK AND THERE WAS NO FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICE OR ROYALTY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSIO N THAT AS IT WAS FOUND THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES ON THE REWORK AND REPAIR CHARGES OF THE DEFECTIVE BRAKES TO THE FOREIGN CUSTOMERS WOULD BE CHEAPER TH AN THE PROCEDURE OF REQUIRING THE CUSTOMERS TO RETURN THE GOODS AND RE-EXPORT THE M AFTER REPAIR AND REWORK WHICH WOULD INVOLVE HIGHER EXPENDITURE ON FREIGHT A ND INSURANCE, IT DECIDED TO LET THE FOREIGN CUSTOMERS TO DO THE REPAIR AND REWORK A ND COST OF THE SAME HAD BEEN I.T.A. NOS. 249, 1069 & 1166/MDS/2010 7 REDUCED FROM THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM THEM. IT W AS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE DID NOT HAVE ANY PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA AND CONSEQUENTLY THEIR INCOM E WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN INDIA, NOR WAS THERE ANY FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES NOR WA S ANY ROYALTY PAID TO ANY FOREIGN PARTIES IN THE PROCESS. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF AP LTD. V. CIT REPORTED IN 239 ITR 587. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NO TDS WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE ON THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR THE REWO RK CHARGES INCURRED BY THE FOREIGN CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE INDIA. IT WAS THE FURTHE R SUBMISSION THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES WAS NOT TAXABLE AS HA D BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SIEMENS AKT IONGESELLSCHAFT REPORTED IN 310 ITR 320 AS ALSO BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING PROJECTS PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 202 ITR 1 014. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ADMI TTEDLY, THE EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED IS NOTHING BUT THE EXPENDITU RE INCURRED BY THE FOREIGN CUSTOMERS ON THE REPAIRS AND REWORK OF THE DEFECTIV E BRAKE LININGS EXPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PAYMENT MADE FOR THE REPAIRS OR REWO RK DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES NOR DOES I T FALL WITH THE TERM ROYALTY. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT NONE OF THE FOREIGN CUST OMERS HAD ANY PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA. CONSEQUENTLY, THE INCOME O F THE FOREIGN CUSTOMERS WOULD NOT BE TAXABLE IN INDIA. ONCE THIS IS SO, THE DECI SION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT I.T.A. NOS. 249, 1069 & 1166/MDS/2010 8 IN THE CASE OF TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF AP LTD., REFERRED TO SUPRA, WOULD SQUARELY APPLY AND NO TDS WOULD BE LIABLE TO BE MAD E ON THE SAID PAYMENTS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FIND ING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS ON A RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR A NY INTERFERENCE. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. 5 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 249 /MDS/2010 AS ALSO GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1166/MDS/20 10 STAND DISMISSED. 13. IN REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1 069/MDS/2010, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT GROUND NO.1 WAS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. I T WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT DURING THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD INS TALLED THE MACHINERY AND AS THE MACHINERY HAD BEEN PUT TO USE FOR MORE THAN 180 DAYS, THE ASSESSEE COULD CLAIM ONLY 50% ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. THE BALANC E OF THE 50% OF THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED DURING THE CURRENT ASSESSM ENT YEAR BEING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS IN FACT THE RESIDUAL ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION RE LEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE RESIDUAL A DDITIONAL DEPRECIATION MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED. 14. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED JR. STANDING COUNSEL SUBM ITTED THAT IT IS PROVIDED IN SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT THAT AS ON 01-04-2005 ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THERE WERE SUB STANTIAL INCREASE IN THE INSTALLED CAPACITY. THUS IT WAS CLEAR THAT ADDITIONAL DEPREC IATION ON THE NEW PLANT AND I.T.A. NOS. 249, 1069 & 1166/MDS/2010 9 MACHINERY COULD BE GRANTED ONLY IN THE YEAR IN WHIC H THE CAPACITY EXPANSION HAS BEEN ACHIEVED AND THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR CARRY FORWARD AND ALLOWANCE OF THE RESIDUAL ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION, IF ANY. HE VEHEM ENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A P ERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 AS APPLICABLE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMEN T YEAR CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON THE PLANT A ND MACHINERY ONLY FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CAPACITY EXPANSION HAS TAKEN PLACE WHICH HAS RESULTED IN THE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE INSTALLED CAPACITY. IN THE ASSESSE ES CASE THIS TOOK PLACE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO C LAIMED THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION DURING THAT YEAR AND THE SAME HAS ALSO BEEN ALLOWED. EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT ASSESSM ENT YEAR. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT DO NOT PROVIDE FOR CARRY FORW ARD OF THE RESIDUAL ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION, IF ANY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FI NDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS ON A RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR A NY INTERFERENCE. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMISS ED. 16. IN REGARD TO GROUND NO.2 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY TH E LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTIO N OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF HIGHER DEPRECIATION ON THE UPS WHICH WAS ENERGY SAVING DEVICE. IT WAS FAIRLY AGREED BY BOTH THE SI DES THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOW COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF I.T.A. NOS. 249, 1069 & 1166/MDS/2010 10 DCITV. SURFACE FINISHING AND EQUIPMENT REPORTED IN 8 1 TTJ 448 (JODH). AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE D ECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, REFERRED TO SUPRA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT THE ASSESSEE HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE UPS, WH ICH IS AN ENERGY SAVING DEVICE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES GROUND NO.2 IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. 17. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS . 249 AND 1166/MDS/2010 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1069/MDS/2010 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 18. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 06/01/ 2012. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 06 TH JANUARY, 2012. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE