DCIT,Circle-3(11), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s Narayani Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2127/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1583 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AARINDAM BHATTACHARJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH TIWARI
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 37(1); 37; 139

Judgement Text

, A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2127/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, 4 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.19, KOLKATA-69 / V/S . M/S NARAYANI ISPAT PVT. LTD., 23A, N.S. ROAD, 7 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.31, KOLKATA-700 001 [ PAN NO.AABCN 1555 D ] /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI AARINDAM BHATTACHARJEE, ADDL. CIT-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI MANISH TIWARI, FCA ! /DATE OF HEARING 21-06-2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30-08-2017 /O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XX, KOLKATA DATED 28.08.2014. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ACIT, RANGE-3, KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 11.01.2013 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE PER ITS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.15,880/- ON SERVICE TAX AND RS.70,000/- ON TDS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEP OSIT THE TAXES OF OTHER PARTIES TO THE OTHER PARTIES TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT WIT HIN DUE TIME. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.45,71,900/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT PAYMENTS TO M/S BALAJEE ROADWAYS, AFTER ADMITTING F RESH EVIDENCE IN CONTRAVENTION TO RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. ITA NO.2127/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-1 1 DCIT CIR-3(1) KOL. VS. M/S NARAYANI ISPA T PVT. LTD. P AGE 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.13,13,396/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON SUNDRY DEBTORS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.4,33,172/- ON ACCOUNT OF I NTEREST ON LOANS AND ADVANCES. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, MODIFY OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS CASE. SHRI ARINDAM BHATTACHARJEE, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE AND SHRI MANISH TIWARI, LD. AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. 2. FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR 15,880/- AND 70,777/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES ON THE LATE DEPOSIT OF SERVICE TA X AND TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE (TDS) RESPECTIVELY. 3. BRIEFLY, STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PRI VATE LIMITED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING / TRADING BUSINESS OF IRON AND STE EL PRODUCTS. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS CLAIMED THE INTEREST & FINANCE EXPENSES IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR RS. 3,48,00,349.00 WHICH INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING EXPENSE S :- ACCOUNT HEAD AMOUNT (RS) REMARKS INTEREST PAID ON SERVICE TAX 15,880 THE EXPENSES IN CLUDE INTEREST PAID FOR LATE PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX DUES INTEREST PAID ON TDS 70,777 THE EXPENSES INCLUDE INTEREST PAID FOR LATE PAYMENT OF TDS HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE LATE PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX AND TDS IS NOT ALLOWABLE FOR THE DEDUCTION FROM THE INC OME. ACCORDINGLY, AO AFTER HAVING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT COMMERCE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT (1998) REPORTED IN 230 ITR 733 HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENSES AND ADDED THE INTEREST O F 86,657/-TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST EXPEN SE WAS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF LATE DEPOSIT OF SERVICE TAX AND TDS WHICH IS ALLOWABLE E XPENSE US 37(1) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.2127/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-1 1 DCIT CIR-3(1) KOL. VS. M/S NARAYANI ISPA T PVT. LTD. P AGE 3 5. THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT COMMERCE INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD BY THE AO AS THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 215 OF THE ACT DUE TO THE DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX ON THE INCOME DI SCLOSED UNDER VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF INCOME AND WEALTH ACT, 1976. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ISSUE RELATES TO THE INTEREST CHARGED ON ACCOUNT OF LATE DEPOSIT OF SERVICE TAX AND TDS. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE COURTS:- CITATION ISSUE INVOLVED CIT VS. MYSORE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. 196 ITR 884 (KAR) INTEREST FOR FAILURE TO PAY PF CONTRIBUTION WAS HELD DEDUCTIBLE U/S. 37(1) LACHMANDAS MATHURA VS. CIT 254 ITR 799 (SC) INTEREST PAID ON SALES TAX ARREAR IS DEDUCTIBLE U/S. 37(1) LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSE SSEE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4-. GROUND NO. (I) RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.86 ,657/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.86,657/- INCLUDES R S.15,880/- TOWARDS INTEREST PAID ON SERVICE TAX AND RS.70,777/- TOWARDS INTEREST DISALL OWED THE SAME FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B HARAT COMMERCE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT 230 ITR 733(SC). HOWEVER, IN THAT CASE THE DISPUTE WAS RELATED TO ALLOWABILITY OF INTEREST U/S.139 & 215 OF THE IT AC T, 1961 WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE THE EXPENDITURE RELATED TO INTEREST PAID ON SERVICE TAX AND INTEREST PAID ON TDS. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, I FIND THAT THE EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE U/S. 37 OF THE IT CT, 1961 AS THE SAME WE RE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO DISALLOW THE SAME. HENCE, HE IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 6. LD. DR BEFORE US VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO WHEREAS LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AO HAS DISALLOWED THE INTEREST EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LAT E DEPOSIT OF SERVICE TAX AND TDS AFTER HAVING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT COMMERCE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT (1998) (SUPRA) . THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE JUDGMENT READS AS UNDER : ITA NO.2127/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-1 1 DCIT CIR-3(1) KOL. VS. M/S NARAYANI ISPA T PVT. LTD. P AGE 4 FACTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE F AILED TO PAY ADVANCE TAX EQUIVALENT TO 75 PER CENT OF ESTIMATED TAX. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER LEVIED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 215 AS WELL AS UNDER SECTION 139. THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED THAT SINCE TAXES WHICH WERE PAYABLE WERE DELAYED, THE ASSESSEE'S FINANCIAL RESOURCES INCREASED WHICH WERE AVAILABLE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. HENCE, THE INTERES T WHICH WAS PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT WAS INTEREST ON CAPITAL THAT WOULD BE BO RROWED BY THE ASSESSEE OTHERWISE. HENCE, THE AMOUNTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. THE REVENUE DID NOT ALLOW SUCH DEDUCTION. THE HIGH COURT AFFIRMED THE V IEW. ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT : HELD WHEN INTEREST IS PAID FOR COMMITTING A DEFAULT IN R ESPECT OF A STATUTORY LIABILITY TO PAY ADVANCE TAX, THE AMOUNT PAID AND THE EXPENDITURE IN CURRED IN THAT CONNECTION IS IN NO WAY CONNECTED WITH PRESERVING OR PROMOTING THE BUSI NESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS NOT EXPENDITURE WHICH IS INCURRED AND WHICH HAS TO BE T AKEN INTO ACCOUNT BEFORE THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS ARE CALCULATED. THE LIABILI TY IN THE CASE OF PAYMENT OF INCOME- TAX AND INTEREST FOR DELAYED PAYMENT OF INCOME-TAX OR ADVANCE TAX ARISES ON THE COMPUTATION OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. T HE TAX WHICH IS PAYABLE IS ON THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME AFTER THE INCOME IS DETERMINED. T HIS CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE CONSIDERED AS AN EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EAR NING ANY INCOME OR PROFITS. INTEREST WHICH IS PAID FOR DELAYED PAYMENT OF ADVAN CE TAX ON SUCH INCOME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EXPENDITURE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FO R THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. UNDER THE ACT, THE PAYMENT OF SUCH INTEREST IS INEXTRICAB LY CONNECTED WITH THE ASSESSEE'S TAX LIABILITY. IF INCOME-TAX ITSELF IS NOT PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37, ANY INTEREST PAYABLE FOR DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE IN DISCHARGING HIS STATUTORY OBJECTION UNDER THE ACT, WHICH IS CALCULATED WITH R EFERENCE TO THE TAX ON INCOME, CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. THEREFORE, IT WAS TO BE HELD THAT DEDUCTION OF INTE REST LEVIED UNDER SECTIONS 139 AND 215 WOULD NOT BE ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37. IN THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FO R INTEREST EXPENSES WAS DENIED AS IT DEFAULTED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ADVANCE TAX IS NOTHING BUT INCOME TAX ONLY WHICH TH E ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY ON HIS INCOME. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE DEFAULT RELATES TO THE DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX AND CONSEQUENTLY INTEREST WAS CHARGED ON THE DE LAYED PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX. IN THE ABOVE JUDGMENT THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD THAT AS INCOME TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION AND THEREFORE I NTEREST EMANATING FROM THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX (ADVANCE TAX) IS ALSO NOT ALL OWABLE DEDUCTION. HOWEVER THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AS IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE INTEREST WAS PAID FOR DELAYED PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX & TDS. THE INTEREST ITA NO.2127/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-1 1 DCIT CIR-3(1) KOL. VS. M/S NARAYANI ISPA T PVT. LTD. P AGE 5 FOR THE DELAY IN MAKING THE PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX & TDS IS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE. AS SUCH THE INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT IS NOT IN T HE NATURE OF PENALTY IN THE INSTANT CASE ON HAND. THE ISSUE OF DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX IS DIRECTLY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF LACHMANDAS MATHUR A VS. CIT REPORTED IN 254 ITR 799 IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED BELOW : THE HIGH COURT HAS PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE INTEREST ON ARREARS OF SALES TAX IS PENAL IN NATURE AND HAS REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE. IN TAKING THE SAID VIEW THE HIGH COURT H AS PLACED RELIANCE ON ITS FULL BENCH'S DECISION IN SARAYA SUGAR MILLS (P.) LTD. V. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 387 (ALL.) THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE APPELLANT-ASSESSE E STATES THAT THE SAID JUDGMENT OF THE FULL BENCH HAS BEEN REVERSED BY THE LARGER BENC H OF THE HIGH COURT IN TRIVENI ENGG. WORKS LTD. V. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 732 (ALL.) ( FB) , WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT INTEREST ON ARREARS OF TAX IS COMPENSATORY IN NATUR E AND NOT PENAL. THIS QUESTION HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 830 OF 1979 TITLED SARAYA SUGAR MILLS (P.) LTD. V. CIT DECIDED ON 29-2-1996. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND QUESTION NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE ANS WERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, THERE REMAINS NO DOU BT THAT THE INTEREST EXPENSE ON THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX IS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTI ON. THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES CAN BE APPLIED TO THE INTEREST EXPENSES LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYED PAYMENT OF TDS AS IT RELATES TO THE EXPENSE S CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE TDS PROVISIONS. THE ASSESSEE CLA IMS THE SPECIFIED EXPENSES OF CERTAIN AMOUNT IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE REAFTER THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PAYMENT TO THE PARTY DEDUCTS CERTAIN PERCENTAGE AS SPECIFIED UNDER THE ACT AS TDS AND PAYS TO THE GOVERNMENT EXCHEQUER. THE AMOUNT OF TDS REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TAX OF THE PARTY ON WHOSE BEHALF THE PAYMENT WAS DEDUCTED & PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT EXCHEQUER. THUS THE TDS AMOUNT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE TAX OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IT IS THE TAX OF THE PARTY WHICH HAS B EEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS ANY DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF TDS BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE LINKED TO THE INCOME TAX OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT COMMERCE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT (1998) REPORTED IN 230 ITR 733 CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE CASE ON HAND. ITA NO.2127/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-1 1 DCIT CIR-3(1) KOL. VS. M/S NARAYANI ISPA T PVT. LTD. P AGE 6 THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE PRINCIPLE LAID DO WN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT COMMERCE INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT FACTS OF THE CASE. THUS, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS WRONGLY APPLIED THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HON' BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT COMMERCE INDUSTRIES LTD.(SUPRA). WE ALSO FIND THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LACHMANDAS MATHURA (SUPRA) HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON LATE DEPOSIT OF SALES TAX U/ S 37(1) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE INTEREST EXPENSES CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYED DEPOSIT OF SERVICE TAX AS WELL AS TDS LIABI LITY ARE ALLOWABLE EXPENSES U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FI ND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. HENCE, THIS G ROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN GROUND NO. 2 IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR 45,71,900/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED FREIGHT EXPENDITURE AFTER ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCES IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES 1962. 9. THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OBSERVED THE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF FREIGHT EXPENSES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS DETAILED UNDER : I) AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR RS . 6,95,20,359.00 II) AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT FOR RS. 8,62,73,035.00 III) AMOUNT SHOWN AS PER SECTION 40A(2)(B) IN TAX AUDIT RS. 8,68,95,895.00 THE AO ACCORDINGLY IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DIFFERENCES CALLED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE DIFFERENCE. IN COMPLIANCE THERETO THE ASSESSE E FILED THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT WHICH IS RE CORDED ON PAGES 3 TO 5 OF THE AO ORDER. HOWEVER THE AO DISREGARDED THE CLAIM AND MAD E THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 8.6 ON 18.12.2012 ON BEING QUERIED REGARDING NON PR ODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEING SUBSIDIARY LEDGER ACCOUNT VENDOR REGARDING FR EIGHT PAYMENT TO SHRERE BALAJEE ROADWAYS THE A/R STATED THAT THERE IS NO SUCH SUBSI DIARY LEDGER VENDOR ACCOUNT FOR FREIGHT PAYMENT TO SHREEE BLAJEE ROADWAYS. THE A/R STATED THAT ONLY A RECONCILIATION OF FREIGHT ACTUALLY PAID AND REPORTED TO RELATED PA RTY IN TAX AUDIT REPORT IN SECTION 40A(212)(B) IS THE ONLY SUBMISSION THAT HE COULD FI LE. THE ORDER SHEET NOTING DTD 18.12.2012 REGARDING NON PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACC OUNT BEING SUBSIDIARY LEDGER VENDOR ACCOUNT HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE A/R AND HE HAS SIGNED ON THE ORDER SHEET ON 18.12.2012 ADMITTING THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY IT IS HE LD THAT THE PAYMENT OF ITA NO.2127/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-1 1 DCIT CIR-3(1) KOL. VS. M/S NARAYANI ISPA T PVT. LTD. P AGE 7 RS.45,71,900/- TO SHREE BALAJEE ROWAYS ON ACCOUNT O F FREIGHT REMAINS UNEXPLAINED AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS A DDED TO THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME. [DISALLOWANCE RS.45,71,900] PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C)OF THE IT ACT 196 1 FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IS SEPARATELY INITIATED. 10. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR AND A LSO DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THEM AND ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WERE MADE FOR NON-PRODUCTION OF SUBSIDIARY LEDGER ACCOUN T OF THE VENDOR REGARDING PAYMENT MADE TO M/S SHREE BALAJI ROADWAYS. THIS AMO UNT WAS NOT CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE BY THE APPELLANT. THERE IS FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR MAINTAINING SUBSIDIARY LE DGER ACCOUNT OF THE VENDOR AND AS SUCH ADDITION FOR THIS REASON IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FREIGHT PAYMENT TO THE SISTER CONCERN U/S. 40A(2)(B) AS REP ORTED IN TAX AUDIT REPORT AND FREIGHT CHARGES DEBITED TO P & L A/C IN THE NAME OF THE SAID SISTER CONCERN WAS BECAUSE OF THE REASON OF LORRY ADVANCE FREIGHT IN-O UT ACCOUNT. SIMILARLY, THE DISCREPANCY OF THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE SAID PARTY U/ S 40A(2)(B) AS REPORTED IN TAX AUDIT REPORT AND SUCH FIGURES APPEARING AS PER NOTE S ON ACCOUNT OF DID NOT CALL FOR ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AS THE RECONCILIATION OF THE SAID WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED AT PAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT IT WAS NOT A N UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AS HELD BY THE AO. THE DIFFERENCE IN FIGURES WAS SATISFACTORIL Y RECONCILED BEFORE THE AO AS APPEARING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. UNDER THE SE CIRCUMSTANCES, NEITHER THE AMOUNT REMAINED UNEXPLAINED NOR IT WAS DEBITED TO T HE P & L A/./C. FURTHER, THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE APPELLANT HAD MADE AN SUCH PAY MENT TO M/S SHREEE BALAJI ROADWAYS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.45,71,900/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED . THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 11. LD. DR BEFORE US ASSAILED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS D ELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN CONTR AVENTION TO THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. HE FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE FREIGHT EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF 45,71,900/- WAS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSE E AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE THE ADDITION WAS MADE. HE REQUESTED THE BENCH TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE NE CESSARY DOCUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION. NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CL AIMED RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.2127/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-1 1 DCIT CIR-3(1) KOL. VS. M/S NARAYANI ISPA T PVT. LTD. P AGE 8 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, IT WA S OBSERVED THAT REVENUE HAS ASSAILED THAT THE RELIEF HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH HAVE ACCEPTED AGAINST THE PROVISION OF RULE 4 6A OF INCOME TAX RULE. IN THIS CONNECTION THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRO UND OF APPEAL. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.45,71,900/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT PAYMENTS TO M/S BALAJEE ROADWAYS, AFTER ADMITTING F RESH EVIDENCE IN CONTRAVENTION TO RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. FROM THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL, IT IS CLEAR THAT T HE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/ EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN ACCEP TED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULE. IN THIS R EGARD ON SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD. DR HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DOCUMENT AMOUNTING TO AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY THE LD. C IT(A) IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULE, 1962. ON THE CONTRARY, WE FIND THAT ALL THE NECESSARY REC ONCILIATION IN SUPPORT OF FREIGHT EXPENSES WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A O AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THERE IS CLEAR FINDING OF THE LD. CIT( A) THAT NO SUBSIDIARY LEDGER IN RESPECT TO FREIGHT CHARGES WAS MAINTAINED BY THE AS SESSEE THOUGH THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF NON-PRODUCTION OF SUBSIDIA RY LEDGER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO I NTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 13. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN GROUND NO. 3 IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR 13,13,396/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON SUNDRY DEBTORS. 14. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CERTAIN SUNDRY DEBTORS WHICH WERE OUTSTANDING FOR A PERIOD OF EXCEEDING SIX MONTHS AND THERE WAS NO BUSINESS DEALING WITH THEM. THEREFORE THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE INTEREST BEARING FUND OF THE ASSESSEE GOT BLOCKED IN THE DEBTORS FROM WHOM NO INTEREST INCOME IS BEING CHARGED. ON QUESTI ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS DETAILED UNDER : ITA NO.2127/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-1 1 DCIT CIR-3(1) KOL. VS. M/S NARAYANI ISPA T PVT. LTD. P AGE 9 I) THE DISPUTE IN RESPECT TO EIGHT (8) DEBTORS FOR RS. 99,11,880.00 IS PENDING IN THE COURT OF LAW AND THEREFORE AS A MATTER OF PRUDE NT BUSINESS POLICY NO INTEREST IS BEING CHARGED. II) THERE IS ANOTHER DISPUTE IN RESPECT TO SUNDRY D EBTORS AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,37,608.00 WITH REGARD TO THE RATE OF THE GOODS A ND ACCORDINGLY NO INTEREST IS BEING CHARGED. III) SIMILARLY NO INTEREST IS BEING CHARGED FROM TH E REMAINING DEBTORS AMOUNTING TO RS. 57,72,348.00 ONLY ON THE GROUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS REGULAR BUSINESS DEALING WITH SUCH DEBTORS. ANY CHARGE OF I NTEREST FROM THEM WILL AFFECT THE BUSINESS DEALING WITH THEM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY DOCUMENT ARY IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS AMOUNTING TO RS. 99,11,880.00 ONLY. THEREFORE THE A O FOLLOWING THE EARLIER YEAR ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 CHARGED INTER EST @ 12% ON THE OUTSTANDING SUNDRY DEBTORS OF 1,09,49,488/- ( 9911880 + 1037608 ) ONLY. THUS, THE AO WORKED OUT THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST FOR 13,13,938/- AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESS EE. 15. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROVIS ION UNDER THE ACT FOR CHARGING THE INTEREST ON THE DEBTORS AND ACCORDINGLY PLEADED FOR THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMIS SION OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION AS UNDER:- 7- GROUND NO. (IV) RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.13 ,13,938/- MADE BY THE AO OUT OF INTEREST DEBITED TO P & L A/C. THE FACT OF THE CASE IS THAT THE AO FOUND THAT THERE WERE SUNDRY DEBTORS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET ON WH ICH NO INTEREST WAS BEING CHARGED BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT SU BMITTED THAT THERE WERE THREE CATEGORIES OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS I.E. RS.99,11,88 /- WHERE RECOVERY WAS SUBJUDICE BEFORE THE COURT OF LAW, RS.10,37,608/- WHERE PARTI ES HAVE RAISED DISPUTE FOR RATE DIFFERENCE AND RS.57,72,348/- WHERE THERE WAS REGUL AR TRANSACTIONS WITH THE PARTIES. FURTHER, ALL THE DEBTORS ARE RELATED TO THE TRADE D EBIT. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THE AO HAS N OT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE FUNDS WHICH WERE TAKEN FOR TH E PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ON WHICH INTEREST WAS BEING PAID, WERE DIVERTED FOR THE NON- BUSINESS PURPOSE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CLAIM OF INTERES T WITHOUT ANY BASIS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. ITA NO.2127/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-1 1 DCIT CIR-3(1) KOL. VS. M/S NARAYANI ISPA T PVT. LTD. P AGE 10 16. BEFORE US BOTH PARTIES RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A UTHORITIES BELOW AS FAVORABLE TO THEM. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE CASE BEFORE HA ND, THE AO HAS WORKED OUT THE INTEREST INCOME ON THE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS WHI CH WERE OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN 6 MONTHS. SUCH INTEREST WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO. THE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT OF SALES OF GOODS OR SERVICES RENDERED TO THE CUSTOMERS ON CREDIT. THE SUNDRY DEB TORS ARE SUPPOSED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON A PARTICULAR TIME. SELLI NG THE GOODS OR PROVIDING SERVICES ON CREDIT IS A COMMON BUSINESS PRACTICE AND SOMETIM E WITHOUT THE PROVIDING THE CREDIT TO THE CUSTOMERS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SURVIVE IN THE COMPETITIVE MARKETS. ON THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT NO DATE FOR THE PAYM ENT FROM THE SUNDRY DEBTOR WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD. THERE WAS NO INFORMATION AVAILAB LE SUGGESTING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR INTEREST ON THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS. THUS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE INCOME FROM INTEREST HAD ACTUALLY ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE DECISION FOR THE CHAR GING THE INTEREST FROM THE SUNDRY DEBTORS TOTALLY DEPENDS UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE AO C ANNOT SIT ON THE ARM-CHAIR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT FOR THE RECOVERY OF INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS WHICH ARE DUE FOR PAYMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CONSIDER B USINESS EXPEDIENCY FOR CHARGING INTEREST FROM THE SUNDRY DEBTORS WHICH ARE OUTSTAND ING IN THE BOOKS. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR THE INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS OUTSTANDING IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE REASONING, WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED F OR. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 18. NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN GROUND NO.4 IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR 4,33,172/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON LOANS AND ADVANCES. 19. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BALANCE-SHEET HAS SHOWN ADV ANCES FOR 48,13,023/- WHICH WERE OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS. ACCORDIN GLY, THE AO AS OF THE VIEW THAT INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUND HAS BEEN DIVERTED WI THOUT ANY INTEREST. ACCORDINGLY, ITA NO.2127/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-1 1 DCIT CIR-3(1) KOL. VS. M/S NARAYANI ISPA T PVT. LTD. P AGE 11 THE AO DISALLOWED THE INTEREST @ 9% OF 48,13,023/- AND MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF 4,33,192/- BY ADDING TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSE E. 20. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT MOST OF THE ADVANC ES WERE GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS THEREFORE, NO INTEREST OF WHATSOEVER O N SUCH ADVANCE IS WARRANTED. BESIDES THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ADV ANCES WERE MADE OUT OF ITS OWNED CAPITAL AND NO BORROWED FUND HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR PROVING SUCH INTEREST FREE ADVANCE. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM ALSO SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF SHARE CAPITAL AND BORROWED FUND AS DETAILED AS UNDER:- 31.03.2010 31.03.2009 SHARE CAPITAL (INCLUDING RESERVE) 88,473,905/- 60, 299,141/- BORROWED FUND 313,339,764/- 140,793,000/- THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 8. GROUND NO. (V) RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTERE ST OF RS.4,33,172/-. THE FACT OF THE CASE IS THAT THE AO FOUND THAT THERE WERE ADVANCES OF RS.48,13,023/- GIVEN TO 8 PERSONS. SINCE, THERE WAS NO BUSINESS CONNECTION WI TH THESE ADVANCES, HE CALCULATED INTEREST ON THE SAME AND TO THAT EXTENT A CLAIM OF INTEREST WAS DISALLOWED. HOWEVER, ON THE SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE THE AO BY THE APPELL ANT. I FIND THAT RS.3,00,000/- WAS GIVEN TO ARYANA MINING & TRADING CORPN PVT. LTD. RS .23,333,500/- WAS GIVEN TO JAGNNATH TRADERS, RS.8,59,636/- WAS GIVEN TO NIMIT STEEL & ALLOYS P LTD. RS.1,69,673/- WAS GIVEN TO SRI KRISHNA TRADERS, RS. 3,73,814/- WAS GIVEN TO THAMBI SHOP, ALL THESE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE TO PURCHASE MATERIAL. RS.1,00,000/- WAS GIVEN TO MATRIX INFOSYSTEMS LTD A ADVANCE FOR SECURITY EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION. RS.2,10,000 WAS GIVEN TO LIGHT HOUSE SYSTEM AND THE AMOUNT REPRESENTS ERP PACKAGE ADVANCE. RS.4,66,400/- WAS AN OPENING B ALANCE SHOWN IN THE NAME OF SINGHAL ENTERPRISES. THE SAME WAS EXPLAINED TO BE T HE AMOUNT UNDER DISPUTE. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE ADVANCE S/BALANCES, I FIND THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE WHERE THE LOAN FUNDS ON WHICH INTEREST WAS B EING PAID WERE DIVERTED FOR NON- BUSINESS PURPOSE. ALL THE ADVANCES ARE RELATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ONLY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, CALCULATION OF INTEREST THEREON AND DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF INTEREST OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 21. BEFORE US LD. DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND HE LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH WHEREAS LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED ON MERI T. ITA NO.2127/KOL/2014 A.Y. 2010-1 1 DCIT CIR-3(1) KOL. VS. M/S NARAYANI ISPA T PVT. LTD. P AGE 12 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AO IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE INTEREST BEARING FUND HAS BEEN DIVERTED FOR NON-BUS INESS ACTIVITIES AND ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED THE INTEREST @ 9% PER ANNUM ON THE AMOUN T OF ADVANCE. 22.1 ON PERUSAL OF APPELLATE ORDER, WE FIND THAT AS SESSEE WAS HAVING ITS OWN CAPITAL FOR 8,84,73,905/- AT THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION. WE NOTE THAT THE OWN FUND OF ASSESSEE WAS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE ADVANCE OF 48,13,023/- ONLY. IN THIS REGARD, LD. DR HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING CON TRARY TO THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) SUGGESTING THAT THE BORROWED HAS BEEN DIVERTED IN N ON-BUSINESS ACTIVITY. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO DIVERSION OF INTEREST BEARIN G FUND TO THE NON-BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE FIND NO REASON TO I NTERFERE IN THE FINDING ARRIVED BY THE LD. CIT(A). UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 23. LAST ISSUE RAISED BY REVENUE IN GROUND NO.5 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 24. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30/08/2017 SD/- SD/- (%&') (!&') (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *DKP-SR.PS )&*+ - 30/08/2017 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUA RE, AAYKAR BHAWAN 4 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.19, KOLKATA-69 2. /RESPONDENT-M/S NARAYANI ISPAT PVT. LTD., 23A, N.S. ROAD, 7 TH FLOOR ROOM NO.31, KOLKATA-700 001 3. **, - / CONCERNED CIT 4. - - / CIT (A) 5. ./0 %%, , , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 012 / GUARD FILE. BY ORD ER/ & , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO , ,