Ivorybrick Homes LLP, Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1846/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4300 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-01-2021
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYADARSHI MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: C SANDEEP
• Keywords: Related party transaction; Question of law; Non-deduction of tax; Difference of opinion; Revised return; TDS
• Section: 40(a)(ia); 194C; 201; 43; 194J; 40a(ia)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1846/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17 IVORYBRICK HOMES LLP, NO.74, 75, VBHC HOUSE, MILLERS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 052. PAN AAEFI 4636 E VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI C SANDEEP, C.A RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRIYADARSHI MISHRA, ADDL.CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 13-01-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-02-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 14/06/2019 PASSED BY LD.CIT(A)-1, BANGALORE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN SO FAR IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE AP PELLANT, IS BAD AND ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE. PAGE 2 OF 10 ITA NO.1846/BANG/2019 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40( A)(IA) OF THE ACT JUST BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE U/ S 194C AS AGAINST S.194J AS HELD BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT FEES PAID TO M/S. VBHC VALUE HOME PVT LTD IS ROYALTY ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF S. 194J OF THE ACT. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT E NTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECOND PROVISO TO S.40(A)(IA). EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO O NE ANOTHER AND THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL TO ADD, DELETE, AMEND OR OTHERWISE MODIFY ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APP EAL. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN LLP, AND FILED ORIGINAL RETUR N OF INCOME ON 17/10/2016. SUBSEQUENTLY, RETURN WAS REVISED ON 29/10/2017 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.6,12,18,818/-. TH E LD.AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN REAL ESTATE DEVE LOPMENT. THE CASE WAS PICKED UP FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY FOR FOLLOWI NG REASONS: 1. LARGE AMOUNT DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40 (A) (IA) I N ITR IN COMPARISON TO TAX AUDIT REPORT. 2. LOW-INCOME IN COMPARISON TO HIGH LOADS/ADVANCES/INVESTMENT IN SHARES APPEARING IN TH E BALANCE SHEET. 3. LARGE ANY OTHER AMOUNT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION CLAIM ED IN SCHEDULE BPO OF THE RETURN 4. LARGE INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY (FORM 26QB) AS COMPARE D TO TOTAL INCOME. PAGE 3 OF 10 ITA NO.1846/BANG/2019 5. TAXABLE INCOME SHOWN IN REVISED RETURN IS LESS THAN THE TAXABLE INCOME SHOWN IN ORIGINAL RETURN AND LARGE R EFUND HAS BEEN CLAIMED. 3. THE LD.AO ACCORDINGLY ISSUED 143 (2) NOTICE AND 142 (1) OF THE ACT ON ASSESSEE CALLING UPON DETAILS. IN RESPON SE TO STATUTORY NOTICES ASSESSEE FURNISHED VARIOUS DETAILS CALLED F OR WHICH WAS EXAMINED AND PLACED ON RECORD. 4. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD.AO OBSERVE D THAT ASSESSEE HAD TRANSACTED WITH VARIOUS PARTIES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND INCURRED EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD BRANDING FEE MANAGEMENT FEE AND MARKETING EXPENSES. THE LD.AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TDS UNDER SE CTION 194C AT 2% IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT TOWARDS BRANDING FEE. A SSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY WHY THE BRANDING FEE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS ROYALTY PAYMENT TO VBHC VALUE HOMES PVT. LTD., AND LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TDS UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. 5. THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD.AO AND HE CONCLUDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 J OF THE ACT WERE ATTRACTED AND TAX SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED BY ASSESSEE AT 10% AS BRANDING FEE PAYMENT WAS IN THE NATURE OF RO YALTY PAID TO VBHC. AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT, LD.AO INVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 40 (A) (IA) OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWED 10% OF THE BRANDING FEE PAID TO VBHC. THE LD.AO THUS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,30,40,810/- PAGE 4 OF 10 ITA NO.1846/BANG/2019 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO, ASS ESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A). 7. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY VBHC WAS IN THE NATURE OF WORKS CONTRACT AND THAT ASSESSEE USED THE LOGO BY ITS HOU SE LOGO AND NOT THE TRADEMARK REGISTERED BY VBHC. IT WAS ALSO S UBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED CERTIFICATE IN FORM 26A FROM THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND THE SAME WAS PRODUCED BEF ORE THE LD.AO AFTER COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, HOWEVER LD.AO DID NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE, T HE LD.CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT USE OF LOGO WOULD BE IN TH E NATURE OF ROYALTY AND THAT, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED BY ASSESSEE INDICATES THAT MARKETING EXPENSES, MANAGEMENT FEE A ND BRANDING FEE ARE BEING TREATED AS SEPARATE ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE WHILE DISCLOSING RELATED PARTY TRANSACTION IN NOTE 24. HE THUS REJECTED THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE THAT MARKETING EXPENSES AND BRANDING FEE WERE ONE AND THE SAME. IT WAS ALSO OBS ERVED BY THE LD.CIT(A) THAT, AS ASSESSEE IS AFFECTING ITS SALES WITH VBHC LOGO, THE PAYMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE TO THE OWNER OF THE BR AND VBHC CANNOT BE A PAYMENT FALLING UNDER THE SCOPE OF SECT ION 194C. HE THUS UPHELD OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD.AO, IN TREATING THE PAYMENT AS ROYALTY FALLING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. 9. IN RESPECT OF FORM 26A FILED BY ASSESSEE, THE LD .CIT(A) HELD THAT, AS THE FORM ALONG WITH ANNEXURE-A WAS NOT FIL ED AS PER RULE PAGE 5 OF 10 ITA NO.1846/BANG/2019 31ACB OF INCOME TAX RULES, NECESSARY VERIFICATION O F THE FORM COULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT. IT WAS HELD BY THE LD.CIT (A) THAT FILING OF FORM BEFORE LD.AO DOES NOT FULFIL THE CONDITIONS LA ID DOWN IN RULE 31ACB OF INCOME TAX RULES, AND THEREFORE NO COGNIZA NCE OF THE SAME COULD TAKEN BY THE LD.AO. HE THUS UPHELD OBSE RVATIONS OF LD.AO AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SEC TION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 10. AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 11. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 (A) (IA) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE FOR SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS, DUE TO DIFFERENCE OF OPINIO N, AS TO THE TAXABILITY OF ANY INCOME IN THE NATURE OF PAYMENTS FALLING UNDER TDS PROVISIONS. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH IN CASE OF DCIT VS S.K.TEKRIWAL REPORTED IN (2011) 15 TAXMANN.COM 289 . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE ITAT KOLKATA HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE BY INVOKING SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IF THERE IS ANY SHORT FALL IN DEDUCTION OF TAX DUE TO DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO THE TAXABILI TY OF ANY EXPENDITURE OR NATURE OF PAYMENT FALLING UNDER VARI OUS TDS PROVISIONS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT KOLKATA IN CASE OF DCIT VS S.K.TEKRIWAL (SUPRA) HAS BEEN UPHELD BY HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN (2014) 361 ITR 43 2. 12. LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT BRANDING FEE PAID TO VBHC IS TOWARDS GRANT OF USE OF VBHC LOGO AND FOR VBHC REFERRING D ETAILS OF PAGE 6 OF 10 ITA NO.1846/BANG/2019 CLIENTS INTERESTED IN BUYING FLATS/UNITS, ACTUAL CONVEYANCE/TRANSFER/EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS, TO ASSI ST ASSESSEE ON A BEST EFFORT BASIS IN OBTAINING ALL KNOW YOUR C USTOMER INFORMATION AND OBTAINING ALL THE DOCUMENTS AS REQU IRED BY LAW. REFERRING TO CLAUS 4 OF THE AGREEMENT PLACED AT PAG E 25 OF PAPER BOOK, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A BUNDLE OF SERVIC ES PROVIDED BY VBHC TO ASSESSEE FOR WHICH A CONSOLIDATED PAYMENTS IS AGREED BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND VBHC. 13. LD.AR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON DECISION OF COORD INATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF KISHORE RAO AND OTHERS (HUF) VS ITO IN ITA NO.1737/B/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT, DECISION BY THIS TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN UPHELD BY HON BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BY ORDER DATED 17/03/2016 PASSED IN ITA NO. 660/2015. 14. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.SR.DR PLACED RELIANCE O N ORDERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. 15. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SI DES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 16. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS BEFORE US, THERE IS A SHORTFALL IN DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE DUE TO DIFF ERENCE IN OPINION, AS TO THE TAXABILITY OF ANY PAYMENT OR NAT URE OF THE PAYMENT MADE UNDER THE TDS PROVISIONS. IT IS ALSO S UBMITTED THAT FOR THIS REASON NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH PAGE 7 OF 10 ITA NO.1846/BANG/2019 COURT IN CASE OF S.K.TEKRIWAL (SUPRA) ON IDENTICAL FACTS ANALYSED IDENTICAL ARGUMENT. THEIR LORDSHIPS CONSIDERED THE VERY SAME ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40( A)(IA) OF THE ACT, IN A CASE WHERE THERE WAS SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT MADE TO SUB-CONTRACTORS. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT IF THERE IS ANY SHORT FALL IN DEDUCTION O F TAX DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN OPINION ON UNDERSTANDING OF TAXABILIT Y OF ANY ITEM OR NATURE OF PAYMENT FALLING UNDER VARIOUS TDS PROVISI ONS, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. HONBLE COURT HELD AS UNDER: 2. THE REASONING APPEARING AT PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE JUDGMENT AND/OR ORDER CHALLENGE READS AS FOLLOWS. 'IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS DED UCTED TAX UNDER SECTION 194C(2) OF THE ACT BEING PAYMENTS MADE TO S UB-CONTRACTORS AND IT IS NOT A CASE OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX OR NO DEDU CTION OF TAX AS IS THE IMPORT OF SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT BUT THE REVENU ES CONTENTION IS THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE IN THE NATURE OF MACHINERY HIRE CH ARGES FAILING UNDER THE HEAD 'RENT' AND THE PREVIOUS PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 1941 OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE. ACCORDING TO REVENUE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TAX @ 1% 2 UNDER SECTION 194C(2) OF THE ACT AS AGAINST THE ACT UAL DEDUCTION TO BE MADE AT 10% UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT, THEREBY LESSER DEDUCTION OF TAX THE REVENUE HAS MADE OUT A CASE OF LESSER DEDUC TION OF TAX AND THAT ALSO UNDER DIFFERENT HEAD AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWE D THE PAYMENTS PROPORTIONATELY BY INVOKING THE PRO VISIONS OF SEC TION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE LD CTT(APPEA;) ALSO ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO WOR D LIKE FAILURE USED IN SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND IT REFERRED TO ONLY NON-DEDUCTION OF FAX AND DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH PAYMENTS. ACCORDING TO HI M, IT DOES NOT REFER TO GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT OR OTHERWISE BUT ADDI TION UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE EVEN THOUGH PAYMEN TS ARE GENUINE BUT TAX IS NOT DEDUCTED AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SEC TION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR MAKING ADDITION IS THAT FAX IS DEDUCTIBLE A T SOURCE AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED IF BOTH THE CONDITIONS ARE SA TISFIED THEN SUCH PAYMENT CAN BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) O F THE ACT BUT WHERE TAX IS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE, EVEN UNDER BONAFID E WRONG PAGE 8 OF 10 ITA NO.1846/BANG/2019 IMPRESSION, UNDER WRONG PRO VISIONS OF TDS, THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED. HERE IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HA S DEDUCTED TAX UNDER SECTION 194C(2) OF THE ACT AND NOT UNDER SECT ION 1941 OF THE ACT AND THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT THIS TDS IS NOT DEP OSITED WITH THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT HAS TWO LIMBS ONE IS WHERE, IN TER ALIA, ASSESSEE HAS TO DEDUCT TAX AND THE SECOND WHERE AFTER DEDUCTING TAX, INTER ALIA, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY INTO GOVT. ACCOUNT. THERE IS NO THING IN THE SAID SECTION TO TREAT, INTER ALIA, THE ASSESSEE AS DEFAU LTER WHERE THERE IS A SHORTFALL IN DEDUCTION. WITH REGARD TO THE SHORTFAL L, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT THERE IS A DEFAULT AS THE DEDUCT/ON IS NOT AS REQUIRED BY OR UNDER THE ACT, BUT THE FACTS IS THAT THIS EXPRESSION, ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UNDER CHAPTER XVII-B AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED , AFTER DEDUCTION HAS NOT BEEN PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION 3(1) OF SECTION 139. THIS SECTION 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT REFERS ONLY TO THE DUTY TO DEDUCT TAX AND PAY TO GOVERNMEN T ACCOUNT IF THERE IS ANY SHORTFALL DUE TO ANY DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS T O THE TAXABILITY OF ANY ITEM OR THE NATURE OF PAYMENTS FALLING UNDER VARIOU S TDS PRO VISIONS, THE ASSESSEE CAN BE DECLARED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAU LT UNDER SECTION 201 OF THE ACT AND NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE BY I NVOKING THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND THE ISSUE OF REVENUE APPEAL IS DISMISSED' 3. WE FIND NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLV ED IN THIS CASE AND THEREFORE, WE REFUSE TO ADMIT THE APPEAL ACCORDINGL Y, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 17. ADMITTEDLY, THE PRESENT FACTS IS NOT THE CASE OF NO DEDUCTION OF TDS AND THAT ASSESSEE UNDER A BONA FIDE BELIEF, DEDUCTED TDS AT 2% UNDER SECTION 194C. IT IS ALSO A PPARENT FROM THE AGREEMENT THAT IT WAS A BUNDLE OF SERVICES THAT WAS RENDERED BY VBHC TO ASSESSEE AGAINST WHICH A CONSOL IDATED PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE. 18. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, IF THER E IS ANY SHORT PAGE 9 OF 10 ITA NO.1846/BANG/2019 FALL IN THE ACTION OF TAX AT SOURCE DUE TO DIFFEREN CE OF UNDERSTANDING OUR OPINION AS TO THE TAXABILITY OF A NY ITEM OR NATURE OF PAYMENT FALLING UNDER VARIOUS TDS PROVISI ONS. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOW ED. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2021 SD/- SD/- (B. R. BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2021. /VMS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE PAGE 10 OF 10 ITA NO.1846/BANG/2019 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON ON DRAGON SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR -2-2021 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER -2-2021 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. -2-2021 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS -2-2021 SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON -2-2021 SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE -2-2021 SR.PS 8. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON -- SR.PS 9. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK -2-2021 SR.PS 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 11. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 12. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 13. DRAFT DICTATION SHEETS ARE ATTACHED NO SR.PS