ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. One World Impex Private Limited, CHENNAI

ITA 1266/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61172 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B SHAN TAKUMAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Question of law; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ) .. I.T.A. NOS. 1265 & 1266/MDS/11 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2007-08 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE V(1), CHENNAI -34. (APPELLANT) V. M/S.ONE WORLD IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,3-C, JAMALS FAZAL CHAMBERS, 26, GREAMS RAOD, THOUSAND LIGHTS, CHENNAI 600 006. PAN : AAACO 6801 A (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHAJI P JACOB, ADDL. C.I.T. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.SHAN TAKUMAR C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 21.05.12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.05.12 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) V, CHENNAI IN ITA ITA NO. 1265/1266/MDS/11 2 NO.466/08-09 DATED 19.04.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006-07 AND ITA NO.28/10-11 DATED 19.04.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007-08. 2. THE GROUNDS NOS. 1 & 4 IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND REQUIRE NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION BY US. 3. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HOLDING THAT ` 9,24,029/- (FOR A.Y. 2006-07) & ` 33,80,627/- (FOR A.Y. 2007-08) PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS FRANCHISE FEE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 37 AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS ADJUDICAT ED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER N OTED THAT THE FRANCHISE FEE PAID TO FRANCHISORS ARE MADE FOR PURCHASE/INVESTMENT TOWARDS ACQUIRING INTANGIBLE AS SET IN THE ITA NO. 1265/1266/MDS/11 3 FORM OF FRANCHISE/LICENSE AND DEPRECIATION @ 25% MA Y BE ALLOWED. 3. BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLU DED THAT, ON THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE, IT WOULD NOT B E ELIGIBLE FOR ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH DISALLOWANCE OF ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION, THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IS IN APPEAL. IN RESPONSE TO HEARING NOTICE ISSUED BY THE UNDERSIGNED, SHRI B.SANTHAKUMAR, FCA APPEARED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH H IM. 4. IT IS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THE FRANCHISE FEE IS PAID FOR ACQUIRING A CAPITAL ASSET. THE ASSESSING OFFICER A D NOTED IN THE ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH SPEC IAL KNOW HOW OF PREPARING FOOD AND BEVERAGES AND ALSO BEEN G IVEN INITIAL TRAINING AND ON GOING TRAINING AND OMITTED TO MENTION PARA 4.5. AND 4.6 THAT THE FRANCHISER SHALL ALSO PROVIDE VARIOUS SERVICES ON A DAY TO OPERATIONS OF THE OUT LET AND FAILED TO UNDERSTAND PARA 6.1.2 FRANCHISE FEE PAYABLE AS A PE RCENTAGE ON THE TURNOVER FOR RENDERING THE DAY TO DAY SERVIC ES AS MENTIONED SUPRA. ITA NO. 1265/1266/MDS/11 4 5. AS REGARDS THE ASSESSING OFFICERS APPREHENSION AS TO WHETHER THE BENEFIT OF THE SERVICES ARE OF ENDURING NATURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED ABOUT THE CLAUSE 3.3. AND OMITTED TO GLANCE OVER CLAUSE 3.1, WHICH STATES THAT THE AG REEMENT IS FOR THREE YEARS AND AS PER PARA 3.2., THE AGREEMENT MAY BE TERMINATED AT ANYTIME OR EXTENDABLE AT THE OPTION O F THE FRANCHISER. THIS SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO TRANSFER O F ANY ASSET AT ALL. THE FRANCHISER ONLY ALLOWS THE LICENSEE TO OP ERATE AND MAINTAIN THE OUT LET AND DOES NOT CONVEY AN THING O F ENDURING BENEFIT. 6. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED VA RIOUS CASES INCLUDING THE CASE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X V.M/S.PREM FAMILY TRUST INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.8 8 OF 1994 [2005] RD-AH 889 (29 MARCH 2005) HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD COURT NO.37, INCOME TAX REF EENCE NO.88 OF 1994 THE CIT KANPUR VS. M/S.KANPUR CIGARET TES (P) LTD. HONBLE R.K.AGRAWAL J.HONBLE PRAKASH KRISHNA J THE ASSESSEE/RESPONDENT IS A COMPANY MANUFACTURING CIGARETTES UNDER THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH M/S.G .T.C. ITA NO. 1265/1266/MDS/11 5 INDUSTRIES LTD. BOMBAY. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986-8 7 WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY AND IT HAS PAID A SUM OF ` 3,26,520/- AS ROYALTY CHARGES TO M/S.G.T.C. INDUSTRIES LTD. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986-87 AND CLAIMED PAYMENT OF SAID ROYALTY CHARGES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT DATED 18 TH JANAURY, 1985 OF THE ASSESSEE /RESPONDENT WITH M/S.G.T.C. IN DUSTRIES LTD. ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE/ RESPONDENT WA S REQUIRED TO PAY ROYALTY CHARGES OF ` 1/- PER THOUSAND CIGARETTES MANUFACTURED FOR ACQUIRING GTCS KNOW HOW AND TECHN ICAL ASSISTANCE AS WELL AS FOR THE USE OF THEIR TRADE MA RK. THE GTC COMPANY AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT AGREED TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES OF ITS TECHNICAL PERSONNEL AS AND WHEN REQUIRED, BUT THE MARKETING OF THE CIGARETTES WAS LEFT TO THE ASSESSEE /RESPONDENT. THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS VALID FOR A PER IOD OF FIVE YEARS WITH THE CONDITION THAT AFTER EXPIRY OF FIVE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE/RESPONDENT WOULD CONTINUE TO MANUFACTURE T HE CIGARETTES AND TO USE TECHNICAL KNOW HOW PROVIDED T O IT BY ITA NO. 1265/1266/MDS/11 6 M/S.G.T.C. INDUSTRIES LTD. ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDIT IONS AS MAY BE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK A VIEW THAT PAYMENT OF R OYALTY WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF PRESENT REFERENCE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND ACCORDINGLY I T WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION I.E.1986-87. THE S AID ORDER WAS CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(APPEALS) BUT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL . THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY BY THE ASSESSEE/RESPONDENT WAS NOTHING BUT A REVENUE EXPEN DITURE JUST TO KEEP THEIR FACTORY GOING AND NO ASSET OF EN DURING NATURE WAS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. AT THE INSTANCE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD HAS REFERR ED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW FOR OPINION TO THIS COURT . WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT PAYMENT OF ROYALTY BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO M/S.G.T.C. ITA NO. 1265/1266/MDS/11 7 INDUSTRIES LTD. IN A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. WE HAVE HEARD SRI A N MAHAJAN, LD STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT AND NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE. FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OF PROFESSION, SEC 37 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ENABLES THE DEDUCTION OF ANY EXPENDITURE LAID O UT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, AS THE CASE MAY BE. THE FI RST FACT AN ITEM OF EXPENDITURE IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY LAID OUT FOR PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS, BY ITSELF, IS NOT SUFFICI ENT TO ENTITLE ITS ALLOWANCE IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX . THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT BE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. A DISTINCTION IN BETWEEN THE REVENUE EXPENDITURE AN D CAPITAL EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN DRAWN BY A CATENA OF DECISIONS . IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO FORMULATE ANY GENERAL RULE WIT H SUFFICIENT ACCURACY AND REASONABLE COMPREHENSION IN CLEAR LINE OF DEMARCATION IN BETWEEN THE BETWEEN THE REVENUE EXPE NDITURE AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN CATENA OF DECISIONS THAT AN EXPENDITURE WHICH IS OF ENDURING NATURE IS A CAPITAL ITA NO. 1265/1266/MDS/11 8 EXPENDITURE. SUCH EXPENDITURE IS MADE NOT ONLY ONC E AND FOR ALL BUT WITH A VIEW TO BRING INTO EXISTENCE AN ASSE T OR ADDITION IN THE ENDURING BENEFIT OF TRADE. THE QUESTION AS TO THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY BY THE AS SESSEE IN PURSUANCE OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER PERSON HAS C OME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN A NUMBER OF CASES. THE SUPREME COURT IN ALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS CO. LIMITED VS. C.I.T. 91989 ) 177 ITR 377 HAS HELD THAT ACQUISITION OF KNOW HOW TO PROVID E HIGHER YIELD SUB CULTURE OF HIGH YIELDING STRAIN OF PENICI LLIN WAS NOT A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, IT IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. IN JONAS WOODHEAD AND SOND (INDIA) LTD. VS. C.I.T. (1997) 224 ITR 342, THE APEX COURT HAS CONSIDERED THAT WHEN A PARTICULAR PAYMENT MADE BY AN ASSESSEE UNDER THE TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT FORMS A PART OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OR R EVENUE EXPENDITURE. IT WOULD DEPEND UPON SEVERAL FACTORS, NAMELY, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED A COMPLETELY NEW PLAN WITH A COMPLETE NEW PROCESS AND COMPLETELY NEW TECHNOLOGY FOR MANUFACTURE OF THE PRODUCT OR THE PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR THE ITA NO. 1265/1266/MDS/11 9 TECHNICAL KNOW HOW WHICH WAS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION WHICH WAS ALREADY BEING PRODUCED; WHETH ER THE IMPROVISION MADE IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS OR A NEW BUSINESS WAS SET UP WITH THE SO CALLED TECHNI CAL KNOW HOW FOR WHICH PAYMENTS WERE MADE; WHETHER ON EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO GIV E BACK THE PLANS AND DESIGNS WHICH WERE OBTAINED, BUT THE ASSE SSEE COULD MANUFACTURE THE PRODUCT IN THE FACTORY THAT HAS BE EN SET UP WITH THE COLLABORATION OF THE FOREIGN FIRM; THE CUM ULATIVE EFFECT ON A CONSTRUCTION OF THE VARIOUS TERMS AND CONDITIO NS OF THE AGREEMENT; WHETHER THE ASSESSEE DERIVED BENEFITS CO MING TO ITS CAPITAL FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE. IN THI S CASE, THE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSIDERED ITS EARLIER JUDGEMENT GIVEN IN THE CASE OF ALEMBIC CHEMICAL WORKS CO. LTD. VS. C.I .T.(SUPRA) IN A RECENT CASE THE SUPREME COURT IN C.I.T. VS. I. A.E.C (PUMPS) LTD. (1998) 232 ITR 316 HAS HELD THAT WHER E UNDER THE AGREEMENT WITH THE FOREIGN COMPANY THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED A LICENCE TO USE ITS PATENTS AND DESIGNS EX CLUSIVELY IN ITA NO. 1265/1266/MDS/11 10 INDIA AND THE AGREEMENT WAS FOR A DURATION OF TEN Y EARS WITH THE PARTIES HAVING OPTION TO EXTEND OR RENEW THE AG REEMENT, THE AGREEMENT CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT WHAT WAS OBTAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A LICENCE AND WHAT WAS PAID BY TH E ASSESSEE TO THE FOREIGN COMPANY ONLY A LICENCE FEE AND NOT THE PRICE OF ACQUISITION OF ANY CAPITAL ASSETS. IT WAS HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY REVEN UE EXPENDITURE. IN THE CASE IN HAND THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE RIGHT ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXCLUSIVE AND THAT TOO WAS FOR A LIMITED PERIOD AND WHICH TOO COULD BE TERMINATED EARLIER WITHIN THE PERIOD OF AG REEMENT AND PAYMENT WAS DEPENDANT ON THE QUANTUM OF THE ITEMS MANUFACTURED. IN VIEW OF THESE FINDINGS THE TRIBUN AL HAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE PAYMENTS TOWARDS ROYALTY WAS NOT HING BUT A REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND WAS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. WE FIND NO ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. FOR A.Y.2006-07 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS HEREBY HELD T HAT DENIAL OF DEDUCTION OF THIS FRANCHISE FEE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS NOT ITA NO. 1265/1266/MDS/11 11 CORRECT. SUCH DEDUCTION IS TO BE GRANTED AND THE AP PEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED IN R ESPECT OF FRANCHISEE FEE OF RS.9,24,029/- AS IT IS BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF TURNOVER AND IS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE AS PER THE CASE LAW CITED SUPRA. FOR A.Y.2007-08 7. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE FRANCHISEE FEE IS RELATABLE TO THE ACTUAL TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS AND THE FACT THAT T HE SAME IS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN VIEW OF THE CAS E LAW QUOTED SUPRA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` 33,80,627/- MADE AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX(APPEALS). THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X(APPEALS). HE COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ANY PRICE FOR ACQUISITION OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET S AND THAT THE ITA NO. 1265/1266/MDS/11 12 PAYMENT AS A FRANCHISE FEE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ONLY A BUSINESS FEE FOR USE OF SUPPORT SERVICE LIKE RUNNING AND UP -KEEPING THE RESTAURANT. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD AND JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(A). IT IS CONFIRMED. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HOLDING THAT ` 3,37,987/- OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 4,22,987/- (FOR A.Y. 2006-07) WAS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 7. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS ADJUDICAT ED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF LEGAL FEE OF `4,22,987/-, THIS WILL FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF CAPITAL EXPENDIT URE AS THESE ARE INCURRED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT FOR PROFESSIONAL CHARGES FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2005 TO 31.03.2006 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT AN AMOUNT OF `3,37,987/- IS INCURRED ON ROUTINE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS. ITA NO. 1265/1266/MDS/11 13 THESE ARE ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF `85,000/- IS CONFIRMED AS BEING CAPITAL EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD LEGAL CHARGES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THIS EXPENDITURE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION35D. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENDITURE WERE INCU RRED ON ROUTINE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE FILED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT FOR PROFESSIONAL CHARGES FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2005 TO 3 1.03.2006 AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) WITHOUT CALLING FOR A REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 3,37,987/- FOR TREATING THE SAME AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN PLACE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OUR C ONSIDERED OPINION, THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF RULE-46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER SHOULD ALSO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY OF VERIFYING THE EVIDENCES, WHI CH WERE PRODUCED ITA NO. 1265/1266/MDS/11 14 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). HE NCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A PPEALS) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER VERIFICATION AS PER LAW AND AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006- 07 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND T HAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 31 ST MAY, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 31 ST MAY, 2012. K S SUNDARAM. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE