AMD Research & Development Centre India Private Limited (Now known as AMD India Private Limited), Hyderabad V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1848/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2296 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI
• Assessee Lawyers: H SRINIVASULU
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; Rule of consistency; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1848/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, [NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED] BANGALORE [PAN: AABCC3447R] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI H.SRINIVASULU, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI Y.V.S.T.SAI, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 02-12-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-12-2019 O R D E R PER D.KARUNAKARA RAO, A.M. : THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, HYDERABAD, DATED 27-07-2017. 2. THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE E XTRACTED AS UNDER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A )] ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND FURTHER ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY. ITA NO. 1848/HYD/2017 :- 2 -: 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HYD ERABAD ['LD. AO'] ERRED IN REDUCING FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION GAIN OF I NR 4,43,39,427 FROM EXPORT TURNOVER AND THEREBY RESULTING INTO ERRONEOU S COMPUTATION OF 7 DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT') AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE SAID ACTION OF THE LD. AO. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION CLAI MED UNDER SECTION-I OF THE ACT ON THE REVENUE AMOUNT OF INR 1,81,28,047 CORRES PONDING TO 12% OF CROSS CHARGES MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY TO ITS OVERSEAS PARENT COMPANY FOR AN AMOUNT OF INR 15,10,67,071 AND THE L D. CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE SAID ACTION OF THE L D. AO. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ANY GROUND OF APP EAL OR TO AMEND, VARY, OMIT OR SUBSTITUTE THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE RESEARC H & DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN SERVICES, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30-09-2009 FOR THE AY.2009-10, DECLARING A TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.96,35,115/-, AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.12,06 ,65,632/- U/S.10A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [ACT] UNDER NORMAL PROVI SIONS AND BOOK PROFIT DECLARED AT RS.11,49,08,105/-. IN THE OR DER U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, RE-ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED, AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS QUANTIFIED OF RS.18,84,55,281/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND THE SAME ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: AMOUNT RS. I) INCOME FROM BUSINESS BEFORE DEDUCTION U/S.10A 12,06,65,632 II) ADJUSTMENT U/S.92CA AS PER ORDER OF TPO 17,88,2 0,166 III) INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS ADMITTED 96,35,11 5 IV) BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF 25,60,343 TOTAL INCOME 31,16,81,256 LESS: DEDUCTION U/S.10A 12,32,25,975 TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED 18,84,55,281 ITA NO. 1848/HYD/2017 :- 3 -: 3.1. WHILE ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION, THE AO CHANGED THE CALCULATIONS OF ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION QUA THE QUANTIFICATION OF EXPORT TURNOVER AND THE TOTAL TURNOVER FIGURES. FURTHER, THE AO REDUCED THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATIONS GAIN FROM THE SCOPE OF THE EXPORT TURNOVER, WHICH LEAD TO THE CHANGES IN THE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT. AO ALSO DID NOT ADJUST THE TOTAL TURN OVER TO THE EXTENT. FURTHER, THE AO DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIM RELATING TO THE CROSS CHARGES EXPENDITURE. 4. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, DESPITE THE ARGUMENTS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) DISMIS SED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE ON ALL COUNTS I.E., CONSIDERATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION GAIN FROM THE SCOPE OF EXPORT TUR NOVER AND THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF CROSS CHARGE S. 4.1. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, BY RAISING THE GROUNDS, MENTIONE D ABOVE. 5. AT THE OUTSET, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO.1 NEEDS TO BE DISMISSED, AS GENERAL IN NAT URE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ORDER. 6. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO INCLUSION OF FOREIGN EXCHAN GE FLUCTUATION GAIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPORT TURNOVER AND THE SAME IS STATED TO BE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF VARIOUS BINDING JUDGMENTS LIKE CIT VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. , (2018) [93 TAXMANN.COM 33] (SC). 6.1. ON HEARING BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIN D THAT IT IS RELEVANT TO EXTRACT THE RATIO LAID DOWN ON THE SAID DECI SION IN THE ITA NO. 1848/HYD/2017 :- 4 -: CASE OF CIT VS. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD., (2018) [93 TAX MANN.COM 33] (SC) AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER: IT : DEFINITION OF TOTAL TURNOVER GIVEN UNDER SE CTIONS 80HHC AND 80HHE CANNOT BE ADOPTED FOR PURPOSE OF SECTION 10A AS TEC HNICAL MEANING OF TOTAL TURNOVER, WHICH DOES NOT ENVISAGE REDUCTION OF ANY EXPENSES FROM TOTAL AMOUNT, IS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR COMPU TING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A; WHEN MEANING IS CLEAR, THERE IS NO NEC ESSITY OF IMPORTING MEANING OF TOTAL TURNOVER FROM OTHER PROVISIONS. 6.2. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF PARITY DEMANDS INCLUSION OF SUCH GAINS IN THE DEFINITION OF EXPORT TURNOVER WHEN THE SAME ARE INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF TOTAL TURNOVER. THE SAID PRINCIPLE STANDS NOW CONSOLIDATED BY THE ORDER OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID CASE CIT VS. HCL TECHNOLOGI ES LTD., (SUPRA). 6.3. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT TH E DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . PENTASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., (2013) [33 TAXMANN.COM 570] (MADRA S) IS FOR TREATING THE SAID FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION GAINS AS PART OF THE EXPORT SALES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF TH E ACT. THE RELEVANT PARA READS AS UNDER: 4. IN ORDER TO ALLOW A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT, WHAT ALL IS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER SUCH BENEFIT EARNED BY THE ASSES SEE WAS DERIVED BY VIRTUE OF EXPORT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EXCHANG E VALUE BASED ON UPWARD OR DOWNWARD OF THE RUPEE VALUE IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DETERMINE THE EXCHANGE VALUE OF THE INDIAN RUPEE. IT HAS TO BE REMEMBERED BUT FOR THE F ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EXPORT HOUSE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF EARNING A NY FOREIGN EXCHANGE. THEREFORE, WHEN THE FLUCTUATION IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATE WAS SOLELY RELATABLE TO THE EXPORT BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THE HIGHER RUPEE VALUE WAS EARNED BY VIRTUE OF SUCH EXPORTS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 10A SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1848/HYD/2017 :- 5 -: 6.4. SIMILAR VIEW WAS ALSO TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE KARNA TAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KSHEMA TECHNOLOGIES LTD., (2016) [66 TAXMANN.COM 165] (KARNATAKA). 6.5. THEREFORE, BOTH ON MERITS, SUCH GAIN CONSTITUTES ELIGIBLE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION. THEREFORE, THE PR INCIPLE OF PARITY DEMANDS INCLUSION OF THE SAID GAINS IN BOTH THE DENOMINATOR AS WELL AS THE NUMERATOR OF THE FORMULA LAID DOWN FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUANTIFICATION OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT. ACC ORDINGLY, GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED AS COVERED. 7. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO ALLOWABILITY OF BENEFIT OF D EDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.10A OF THE ACT ON THE REVENUE ACCOUNT, CO RRESPONDING TO 12% OF CROSS CHARGES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS OVE RSEAS FOREIGN COMPANY (ATI CANADA). RELEVANT FACTS AS NARRATED IN PARA 2.2.1 OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS (APPENDIX-A) INCLUDES THE FOLLOW ING: 2.2.1. THE APPELLANT COMPANY, BEING A CAPTIVE SERV ICE PROVIDER, PROVIDES SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO ITS PARENT COMPANY , ATI CANADA UNDER A COST PLUS MARK-UP ARRANGEMENT. SINCE THE APPELLANT COMPANY DID NOT POSSESS CERTAIN REQUISITE SKILL SETS TO PERFORM CER TAIN PORTION OF ITS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THE PARENT COMPANY ATI CANADA ENTERED INTO A CONTRACTOR SERVICE AGREEMENT' WITH M/S SOCTRONICS T ECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'SOCTRONICS') [ EARLIER KNOWN AS GD MICROSYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED], A COMPANY INCORPORAT ED IN INDIA, TO PROVIDE ENGINEERS AT SPECIFIED RATES. SINCE THE SERVICES WE RE FOR THE BENEFIT OF AMD INDIA, ATI CANADA HAS ACCORDINGLY, CROSS-CHARGED TH E SAID EXPENSES I.E. AMOUNT OF INR 15,10,67,071 PAID TO SOCTRONICS, TO T HE APPELLANT COMPANY ON COST TO COST BASIS. SINCE, THE AMOUNT CROSS-CHAR GED BY ATI CANADA FORMED PART OF THE COST BASE OF THE APPELLANT COMPA NY, IT RECOVERED THE SAME FROM ATI CANADA WITH A TRANSFER PRICING MARK-U P OF LNR.L,81,28,047 I.E. 12% OF INR 15,10,67,071 AS A PART OF ITS SOFTW ARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE CHARGES AS PER ITS AGREED MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH ATI CANADA. 2.2.2. THE LD. AO WHILE PASSING THE CAPTIONED RE-A SSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31 MARCH 2015, HAS DENIED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 10A OF THE ACT ON ITA NO. 1848/HYD/2017 :- 6 -: THE MARK UP AMOUNT OF INR. 1,81,28,047 CHARGED TO ATI CANADA, WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY COGENT REASON THERE OF. 7.1. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND THE CIT(A) DESPITE THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE, UPHELD TH E ACTION OF AO, STATING AS UNDER: 7.3 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CAR EFULLY EXAMINED. THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE ME THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,81,28 ,047/- RECEIVED FROM M/S. SOCTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, WHICH HAVE BEEN FO RMED BY TAKING OVER MIS. G D MICROSYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED. THE ANALYSIS OF ME IS AS UNDER: A) M/S. SOCTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED IS A UNLISTED PRIVA TE COMPANY INCORPORATED ON 20.03.2000 B) IT IS INVOLVED IN SOFTWARE, PUBLISHER, CONSULTANCY AND SUPPLY C) IT HAS PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.5,00200/-. D) M/S. SOCTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED IS A VLC DESIGN SER VICES COMPANY AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT, ATI CANADA HAS ENTER ED AGREEMENT WITH M/S. SOCTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED AS THE APPELLANT CO MPANY M/S.AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED WAS NOT CAPABLE OF DOING THE WORK. HENCE, THE CREDIT WORK FOR THIS PAR T OF INCOME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO M/S. SOCTORNICS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDIA. THEREFOR E, THIS INCOME IS NOT DIRECT INCOME OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY . SECTION 10A IS VERY CLEAR REGARDING 'INCOME FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS', THIS INCOME IS NOT GENERATED BY THE WORK OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CORRECT IN TAKING T HIS INCOME AS NOT DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. DISALLOWANCE OF THIS IN COME FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER FOR CALCULATION OF 10A DEDUCTION, IS UPHEL D. 7.2. AT THE OUTSET, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRA TED THAT THE ABOVE NARRATED FACTS ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE CLAIM IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE SAID CLAIM WAS DULY ALLOWED BY THE AO IN THE PAST. FOR THE FIRST TIME, AO RESORTED TO MAKE ADDITIONS O N THIS ACCOUNT, IGNORING THE DECISION OF HIS PREDECESSOR AND WITHOUT BRINGING ANY REASONS FOR DEVIATING FROM THE PAST. REL YING ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOPAL PUROHIT (2010) [188 TAXMAN 140] (BOMBAY), WHIC H WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT, LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE ITA NO. 1848/HYD/2017 :- 7 -: SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THE SAID PROVISIONS OF CONSIS TENCY, THE AO SHOULD BE BARRED FROM MAKING ADDITIONS WHEN THE FA CTS ARE EXACTLY SIMILAR. 7.3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED H EAVILY ON THE ORDER OF AO. 7.4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPLICABILITY OF PRINCIPLE OF CONSI STENCY. THE SAID RULE DEMANDS THAT NO DISTURBANCE IS TO BE CAUSED FOR IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHEN THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE IDENTIC AL. IN THIS REGARD, WE ALSO CONSIDERED THE BINDING JUDGMENT OF H ON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOPAL PUROHIT ( 2010) [188 TAXMAN 140] (BOMBAY), WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HON 'BLE APEX COURT, DISMISSING THE SLP IN CC NO.16802/2010. 7.5. DESPITE THE LABOUR DEMONSTRATED BY THE LD.DR FOR TH E REVENUE, WE FIND THAT NO DIFFERENTIAL FACTS WERE BROUG HT TO OUR NOTICE FOR THE AO TO DEVIATE FROM HIS LINE OF ACCEPTING THE C LAIM OF ASSESSEE IN THE PAST YEARS. IN THIS REGARD, WE PERUSED PARA 3 OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOPAL PUROHIT (2010) [188 TAXMAN 140] (BOMBAY), WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENES S, PARA 3 OF THE SAID ORDER IS REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: 3. INSOFAR AS QUESTION (B ) IS CONCERNED, THE TRIB UNAL HAS OBSERVED IN PARAGRAPH 8.1 OF ITS JUDGMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED A CONSISTENT PRACTICE IN REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITIES, THE MANNER OF KEEPING RECORDS AND THE PRESENTATION OF SHARES AS INVESTMEN T AT THE END OF THE YEAR, IN ALL THE YEARS. THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT A DIFF ERENT VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, SINCE THE P RINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE TRIBU NAL CORRECTLY ACCEPTED THE POSITION, THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT ATTRACTED SINCE EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SEPARATE IN ITSELF. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THERE OUGHT TO ITA NO. 1848/HYD/2017 :- 8 -: BE UNIFORMITY IN TREATMENT AND CONSISTENCY WHEN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL , PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS APPROACH OF THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE FAULTED. TH E REVENUE DID NOT FURNISH ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR ADOPTING A DIVERGENT APPROACH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. QUESTION (B), THEREFOR E, DOES NOT ALSO RAISE ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION. 7.6. WHEN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL, THE AO SHOULD BE BARRED FROM TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE M ATTER. THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT ATTRACTED CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY. THEREFORE, WITHOUT GOING TO THE MERITS O F THE ISSUE I.E., ALLOWABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE SAID PARTIES, W E ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ON THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY ITSEL F, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD GET RELIEF. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.3 IS ALLO WED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH DECEMBER, 2019 SD/- SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) (D. KARUNAKARA R AO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 5 TH DECEMBER, 2019 TNMM ITA NO. 1848/HYD/2017 :- 9 -: COPY TO : 1. AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT NO.102 & 103, EX PORT PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARK, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1( 1), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(APPEALS)-1, HYDERABAD. 4. PR.CIT-1, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.