The ACIT, Indore V. M/s S.R.Enterprises, Indore

ITA 347/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 47863 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 1992-1993
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KESHAV SAXENA
• Assessee Lawyers: S S SOLANKI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Revised return
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.347/IND/2010 AY: 1992-93 ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE ..APPELLANT V/S. M/S S.R. ENTERPRISES INDORE GIR NO. S-301 ..RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI KESHAV SAXENA, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.S. SOLANKI, CA ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2010 OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DI RECTING 2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF EXP ENDITURE OF RS. 32,85,931/- SUBSTANTIATED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN THE PROJECT OF THE FILM FROM THE DETAILS AVAILABLE IN SEIZED MATERIAL AND A PART OF THE SAME WAS DULY ADMITTED BY SHRI ANIL RATHI IN HIS STATEMENT U/S 13 2(4) BEING MET FROM THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIR M. 2. BEFORE US, SHRI KESHAV SAXENA, THE LEARNED CIT DR SUBMITTED THAT IN IT WAS ONLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH TH E DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS CASE THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER MADE THE ADDITION IN QUESTION ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENT IRE ISSUE AFRESH IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSES SEE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS, T HEREFORE, NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SAME. ON THE OTHER HA ND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 22 LACS WAS TAXED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94, T HERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER T HE SAME OVER AGAIN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 WHICH CERTAINL Y AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION. HE FURTHER ADDED THAT THE DIRE CTION OF THE 3 TRIBUNAL WAS CONFINED TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 22 LACS BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE CONSIDERING THE SAME ALSO A DDED A SUM OF RS. 10,85,931/- WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. HE, THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT SINCE THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ILLEGAL, LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N IN QUESTION. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILE. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM FILED ITS R ETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,11,830/-. THERE WA S A SEARCH IN THIS CASE AND DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS STAT EMENT OF SHRI ANIL RATHI WAS RECORDED IN WHICH HE ADMITTED T HAT HE HAD STARTED PRODUCTION OF A PICTURE IN THE FINANCIAL YE AR 1991-92 UNDER THE BANNER OF GANESH PRODUCTION (HIS PROPRIET ORSHIP CONCERN) AND HAD INCURRED RS. 42 LACS FOR SUCH FILM PRODUCTION. HE TENDERED THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 42 LACS COMPRIS ED OF RS.20 LACS OUT OF BANK WITHDRAWALS AND THE BALANCE OF RS. 22 LACS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. HE ACCORDINGLY SURRENDERE D THIS 4 AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM FOR TAX PU RPOSES AND FILED REVISED RETURN ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, HOWEVER, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEPOSIT TH E TAX ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 22 LACS DECLARED IN S EARCH PROCEEDINGS AND SO ALSO DID NOT FILE ANY REVISED RE TURN. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SHRI RATHI RET RACTED FROM HIS STATEMENT AND FILED A LETTER IN WHICH HE HAD ST ATED THAT HE MEANT TO SAY THAT THE SURRENDER OF RS. 22 LACS WAS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1992-93. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSME NT ORDER U/S 143(3) WAS PASSED ON 23.3.1995 AFTER MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 22 LACS IN THE AY 1992-93. THIS MATTER WENT UP TO THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO MAKE PROPER INVESTIGATION ALL OVER AGAIN AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUA TE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND ADDITIONS MAY BE MA DE AFTER CONSIDERING THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PRODUCTION OF THE PICTURE. FOLLOWING THE D IRECTIONS OF 5 THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE PROCEE DINGS AGAIN AND REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE MATTER BY GIVING DETAILS/EVIDENCES IN REGARD TO THE TRANSACTIONS REC ORDED IN THE BOOKS/RECORDS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED REPLY. THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY HIM IN PARA 3.02 AT PAGE 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE AND CONCLUDED THAT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INC URRED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PRODUCTION OF PICTURE WAS 52,8 5,931/-. AFTER REDUCING RS. 20 LACS PERTAINING TO M/S GANES H PRODUCTIONS AS STATED BY SHRI ANIL RATHI, WHICH WAS FOUND BY HIM TO HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER M ADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 32,85,931/- TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE S UBMISSIONS AND RECORD OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS OFFERED THE AMO UNT OF RS. 6 22 LACS FOR TAXATION IN THE AY 1993-94 AND THE SAME HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. HE FOUND THAT ONCE THE AMOUNT O F RS. 22 LACS HAS BEEN TAXED IN THE AY 1993-94 WHICH WAS ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL BY WAY OF CROSS APPEALS, THERE WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NO JUST IFICATION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAX THIS AMOUNT AGAIN IN T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. HE FURTHER HELD THAT SINCE THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS. 22 LACS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TA XING THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS. 10,85,931/-, THEREBY MAKIN G A TOTAL DEMAND OF RS.32,85,931/-. FOR THESE REASONS, LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE AD DITION IN QUESTION. PRECISE OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS RECORD ED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE AS UNDER :- 4. FACTS ON RECORD, FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN APPEAL AS WELL ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT ORDER AND FURTHER FINDINGS ARRIVED AT DIFFERENT STA GES OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL CONNECTED CASE OF SHRI ANIL RATHI, PARTNER OF THE F IRM ARE CAREFULLY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. 7 4.1 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR A.Y. 1993-94, THE SAID SUM OF RS.22 LAKHS DISCLOSED AS UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT IN FILM PRODUCTION UNDER THE BANNER SHRI GANESH PRODUCTIONS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. AS PER FINDINGS RECORDED IN PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER : SO FAR AS DISCLOSURE OF RS. 22 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN SHRI GANESH PRODUCTIONS IS CONCERNED AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.3. 95, THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE DURING F.Y. 91- 92. ACCORDINGLY, THE SUM OF RS. 22 LAKHS IS CONSIDERED AND INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME FOR A.Y. 92-93 O F THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT STATEMENT DATED 3.12. 02 OF SHRIANIL RATHI U/S 132(4) IS ALSO QUOTED IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS, THE SUM OF RS. 22 LAKHS FOR A.Y. 1992-93 IS DISPUTED IN APPEAL. IN VIEW OF T HIS, THE SUM OF RS. 22 LAKHS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HIS YEAR IS CONSIDERED WITH A FINDING THAT ON FINALISA TION OF ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 1992-93, THE SAME SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME. 4.1.1 THE FINDINGS ARRIVED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER FORA .Y. 93-94 ON THIS ISSUE HAS BECOME FINAL IN SO MUCH AS THIS ISSUE WAS NOT AGITATED IN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) IN A PPEAL DECIDED IN IT-116/96-97 ON 23.7.96 BY CIT(A)-II. I N FACT, THE CIT(A)-II WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL PREFERRED B Y THE ASSESSEE FIRM, WHILE CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MA DE BY THE A.O. FOR DEDUCTION OFRS. 3,65,000/- OUT OF SURR ENDERED INCOME HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THIS DISCLOSURE OF UNACCOU NTED INVESTMENT OF RS. 22 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPE LLANT FIRM. IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO EXTRACT THE OBSERV ATIONS APPEARING IN PARA 1.1 AS UNDER :- IF THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE INDIVIDUAL CASES OF THE PARTNERS IS TO BE ACCEPTED, THERE IS SIMPLY NO REASON WHY UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF RS.22 LACS IN THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF PARTNERS HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT FIRM IN ITS BOOKS INSTEAD OF BEING OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE HANDS OF SHRI ANIL RATHI. THE FACTS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE 8 APPELLANT FIRM CONSISTS OF 3 MEMBERS OF THE SAME FAMILY AND ONE SUCH MEMBER HAS STATED THAT ALL UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT AND EXPENDITURE HAS COME OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FIRM WHICH HAS BEEN MAINLY HONOURED BY THE OTHER PARTNERS AND THERE IS NO REASON WHY SIMPLY SUCH SURRENDER IS BEING OBJECTED TO NOW IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OFRS. 3,65,000/-. 4.1.2 FURTHER, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS DISMISSED BY HON BLE ITAT, INDORE BENCH, INDORE, PER ORDER DATED 8.6.04 IN ITA NO. 915/IND/1999 ON ACCOUNT OF THE TAX INVOLVED IN APPEAL BEING LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT AS PER BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO. 1903 DATED 28.10.92. THUS, THE ADD ITION OF RS. 22 LAS ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN SHRI GANESH PRODUCTION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT FIRM FOR A .Y. 1993-94 HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. 4.1.3 PROCEEDING FURTHER IN THE CASE OF SHRI ANIL R ATHI, THE MAIN PARTNER OF THE FIRM IN WHOLE SEARCH AND SE IZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED FOR ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 1993- 94 PASSED ON 29.3.96, A FURTHER ADDITION FOR UNEXPL AINED INVESTMENT IN PRODUCTION OF FILM WAS MADE AT RS.20,72,992/-. THE CIT(A)-II IN ITA 117/96-97 DEC IDED ON 26.12.97 IN THE CASE OF SHRI ANIL RATHI FOR A.Y. 1993- 94 AS PER FINDINGS ARRIVED IN PARA 18 CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE AFORESAID GROUND IN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FILM PRODUCTION AT RS.5,10,500/- OUT OF RS. 20,72,992/- MADE BY A.O. THE APPELLANT THEREAFTER S ETTLED THE ISSUE BY OPTING FOR KVSS AS NPER CERTIFICATE U/ S 90(2) OF KLVSS 1998 DATED 9.3.99 ISSUED BY CIT, INDORE, I N THIS BEHALF. 4.2 IN THIS FACTUAL BACKDROP, THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION IN THE PRESENT APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ARE EXAMINED. THE APPELLANTS ARGUMENTS ARE TWO-FOLD T HAT ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE I N THE CASE OF SHRI ANIL RATHI, PRODUCER OF THE MOVIE IN A .Y. 1993-94 AND THERE THE ADDITION AS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) HAS SINCE BECOME FINAL HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED BY SHRI RATHI THROUGH KVSS. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS THE DISCLOSURE PERTAINED THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 22 LACS H AS ALSO 9 ATTAINED FINALITY AS HAVING BEEN OFFERED AND ACCEPT ED FOR A.Y. 1993-94 THEN THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT TAX THE SAM E AGAIN IN A.Y. 92-93 WHEN THIS BROADLY UNDISPUTED FA CT ON RECORD THAT THE FILM PRODUCTION STARTED TOWARDS THE END OF F.Y. 1991-92 ONLY. IT WAS ALSO EMPHASIZED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS IN NO WAY DISPUTED THE FIGURE OF DISC LOSURE MADE AT RS. 22 LACS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ACTUALLY OFFERED FOR TAX IN A.Y. 1993-94. HENCE, AT THIS LATE STAGE AFTER NEARLY 20 YEARS THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE FORCED I NTO UNWARRANTED LITIGATION FOR TAXING THE SAME AMOUNT I N A.Y. 92-93. 4.2.4 THE BROAD FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THE APPEL LANT FIRM HAS OFFERED AMOUNT OF RS.22 LACS FOR TAXATION IN A.Y. 93-94 AND THE SAME HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. THE HONB LE ITAT RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE A.O. FOR DETAILED I NQUIRES AS THERE WERE NO PROPER FINDINGS OF FACTS AS FAR AS THE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE WAS INVOLVED. BUT ONCE THE MATTER HAS ATTAINED FINALITY FOR A.Y. 1993-94 WHICH WAS AL SO SIMULTANEOUSLY UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE HONBLE I TAT, BY WAY OF CROSS-APPEAL, THERE WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY N O JUSTIFICATION FOR TAXING THIS AMOUNT AGAIN IN A.Y. 92-93 MERELY BASED ON THE INITIAL STATEMENT OF SHRI ANIL RATHI WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CLARIFIED IN REPLY TO VERY S AME QUESTION AS OMITTED TO BE EXTRACTED IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION SUBSEQ UENT A.Y. 93-94. THUS, IT HAS TO BE NECESSARILY HELD THA T THE ADDITION OF RS.22 LACS CANNOT BE AGAIN MADE FOR A.Y . 92- 93. FURTHER SINCE THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BY HONBL E ITAT TO THE A.O.FOR CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AT RS. 22 LACS, THE A.O.S ACTION IN TAX ING THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS. 10,85,931/- WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE ITAT, MORESO WHEN SEPARATE ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FIL M PRODUCTION HAS BEEN SEPARATELY MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI ANIL RATHI AGAIN FOR A.Y. 1993-94 AS DISCUSSED IN D ETAIL ABOVE. THUS, THE MAIN ISSUE AGITATED BY THE APPELL ANT ON MERIT IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 10 AGAINST THIS DELETION OF ADDITION, NOW THE DEPARTME NT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED RS. 22 LAKHS FOR TAXATION IN THE AY 199 3-94 WHICH HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. SINCE THERE WAS NO FINDING WITH REGARD TO THE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE, THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FI RST ROUND OF APPEAL HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE D ETAILED INQUIRES IN THIS REGARD WHO AGAIN ADDED THE SAME AM OUNT WHICH WAS DELETED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER RECORDING DETAILED FINDINGS AT PARA S 4 TO 4.2 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER. WE FIND THAT WHEN THE MATTER HAD ATTAINED FINALITY IN THE AY 1993-94 WHICH WAS ALSO SIMULTANE OUSLY UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THERE WAS ABSOLU TELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR TAXING THIS AMOUNT AGAIN IN THE A Y 1992-93 ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI ANIL RATHI WHICH WAS CLARIFIED SUBSEQUENTLY IN REPLY TO THE VERY SAME QUESTION AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION SUBSEQUENTLY IN AY 1993-94. IT IS ALSO APPARENT FROM RECORD THAT THIS AMOUNT WA S ALREADY 11 OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 BY SHRI ANIL RATHI UNDER THE KAR VIVAD SAMADHAN SCHEME WHIC H WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. SINCE THIS AMOUNT OF RS . 22 LACS WAS CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94, IT C ANNOT AGAIN BE ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. SIN CE THE TRIBUNAL HAD SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO CONSIDER THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS. 22 LACS, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TAXING THE ADDITIONAL A MOUNT OF RS.10,85,931/- WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIO NS OF THE TRIBUNAL, ESPECIALLY WHEN SEPARATE ADDITION FOR UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE FILM PRODUCTION HAS ALREADY BEEN SEPARATELY MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI ANIL RATHI IN THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1993-94. THE DETAILED FINDINGS RECORDED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE AS PER MAT ERIAL ON RECORD WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. IN TH IS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS R ECORDED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND CO NFIRM 12 THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HAS, THEREFORE, NO MERIT AND IS DISMISSED AS SUCH. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JUNE, 2011. (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28 .6.2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE DN/-