D.C.I.T.-4(1), Agra V. Sh. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, Agra

ITA 374/AGR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56909 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA
• Section: 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI A. L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 374/AGRA/2010 ASST. YEAR : 2005-06 D.C.I.T., 4(1), AGRA. VS. SHRI MUKESH KUMAR AGAR WAL, D-15, KAMLA NAGAR, AGRA. (PAN : ABKPA 0305 M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI ANURAG SINHA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 06.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.03.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA DATED 12.05.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD. GROUND NO.1 : THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT D ELETING THE ADDITION IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A OF I.T. RULES , 1962 OF RS.3,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN TH E SOURCE OF CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. 2 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS ON GROUND NO.1, NOTED ABOVE, ARE THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/- BY TREATING FRESH CAPITAL CONTRIBU TION TO BE UNEXPLAINED. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURC E OF THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION. THE ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND I T WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED XEROX COPY OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF PROPRIETARY CONCERN APPEARING IN ITS AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH WOULD CLARIFY THAT FRESH DE POSITS WERE ROUTED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES FROM SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF T HE PROPRIETARY CONCERN. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE CANARA BANK, AGRA SHOWING WITHDRAWAL OF RS.50,000/- AND FURTHER, THERE IS A W ITHDRAWN OF RS.2,50,000/-. IT WAS, THEREFORE, EXPLAINED THAT THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION OF RS.3,00,000/- IS CLEARLY EXPLAINED. THE LD. CIT(A) FORWARDED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVIDENCES LIKE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT ETC. TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR FILING THE REMAND REPORT. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT FOUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUN D THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.3,00,000/-, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, ARE FULLY VERIFI ABLE FROM THE COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SAME TALLIES WITH THE CURRENT ACCOU NT OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THERE WERE TRANSFERS FROM SAVING BANK ACCOUNT TO THE CURR ENT ACCOUNT. THE ADDITION WAS, ACCORDINGLY, DELETED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE LD . DR SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION. 3 THEREFORE, RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES HAS BEEN VIOLAT ED IN THE MATTER. COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT IS FILED AT PAGE 54 OF THE PAPER BOOK . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO REPLY FILED BE FORE THE AO ON 05.12.2007 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE COPIES OF THE CURRENT ACCOUNT, S AVING BANK ACCOUNT AND OTHER EVIDENCE WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO ALONG WITH REPLY, BUT THE AO CHOSE NOT TO REFER THE SAME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. EVEN IN THE REMAN D REPORT FILED BY THE AO AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A CERTIFICATE IN THE PAPER BOOK THAT ALL THESE EVIDEN CES WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO. ON CONSIDERING ALL THE ABOVE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS GROUND. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER B OOK HAS GIVEN CERTIFICATE THAT THE REPLY DATED 05.12.2007 WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO WHIC H CONTAINED COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE, THROUGH THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE FILED RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. TH IS FACT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT. NEVERTHELESS, THE SAME EVI DENCES WERE ALSO FORWARDED TO THE AO AT THE APPELLATE STAGE FOR EXAMINATION AND F ILING THE REMAND REPORT. THE AO HAS NOT ADVERSELY COMMENTED UPON THE SAME. THEREFOR E, IT IS ESTABLISHED ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED FRESH CAPITAL CONTRIBUT ION THROUGH OTHER BANK ACCOUNT TO CURRENT ACCOUNT OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN. HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH IN UNREPORTED DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. AAKAR CONSTRUC TION (P) LTD. IN ITA NO. 8 OF 2011 DATED 23.01.2012, COPY OF WHICH IS SUPPLIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, 4 HAS DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL BY HOLDING TH AT RULE 46A PRESCRIBES THAT AN OPPORTUNITY WILL HAVE TO BE GIVEN TO THE AO BEFORE ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE. IN THAT CASE, THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT OF TH E AO. THEREFORE, NO VIOLATION WAS FOUND OF RULE 46A. FURTHER, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYAN A HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KULDEEP INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, 209 CTR 400 HELD TH AT WHEN THE AO WAS PRESENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTI ON FOR SUBMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS, RULE 46A WOULD NOT BE VIOLATED. CONSIDER ING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, NOTED ABOVE, IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE D ECISIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE SAME I S, ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. GROUND NO.2 : THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 68 OF IT ACT IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN AND THE ALLEGED CREDITOR M/S. ABHINAV VINIMAY (P) LTD. HAS NOT CONFIRMED THE FACT OF LOAN REQUIRED BY IT THROUGH N OTICE U/S. 133(6) OF IT ACT. 5. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.18,00,000/- ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN RECEIVED FROM M/S. ABHINAV VINIMAY (P) LTD., A CONC ERN OF KOLKATA. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE PAR TY, COPY OF THEIR ACCOUNT AND MODE OF RECEIPT OF LOAN AND CONFIRMATION TO JUSTIFY TAKING OF LOAN IN TERMS OF IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANS ACTION. ACCORDING TO THE AO, REQUISITE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED. THEREFORE, TH E AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S. 133(6) ON 5 18.12.2007 CALLING INFORMATION DIRECTLY FROM THE CR EDITOR, BUT NO INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED REGARDING CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN. THEREF ORE, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT AND, ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION WAS MADE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY DATED 05.12.2 007 AND CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITOR ALONG WITH ITS POSTAL ADDRESS AND PERMANEN T ACCOUNT NUMBER WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE FURTHER QUERY OF THE AO SUBMITTED REPLY DATED 11.12.2007 AND FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WERE FURNIS HED : (I). COPY OF PAYMENT SLIP WITH INSTRUMENT THROUGH W HICH THE LOAN WAS DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. (II). INCOME-TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE CRED ITOR COMPANY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. (III). EXTRACT OF BANK ACCOUNT OF CREDITOR COMPANY SHOWING LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. (IV). RELEVANT SCHEDULE OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE CREDITOR COMPANY. (V). FRESH CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITOR COMPANY C ONFIRMING THE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. 5.1 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE AO WAS COMPLETELY WRONG IN MAKING THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT DISCARDING/DIS CREDITING ANY OF THE EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CREDIT OR COMPANY IS ASSESSED TO TAX AND COPY OF THEIR PAN WAS FILED AND LOAN HAS BEEN RECEI VED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE AO HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE RELIED 6 UPON SEVERAL DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION . THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVIDENCES WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR REMAND R EPORT. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES AND REMAND REPORT OF THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED LOANS OF RS.10,00,000/- AND RS.8,00,000/- THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES DRAWN ON IDBI BANK, KOLKATA. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED REPLY DATED 05.12.2007 BEFORE THE AO, IN WHICH THE SAME DETAILS WERE ALSO FURNISH ED. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTH INESS OF THE CREDITOR IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE CREDITOR IS ASSESSED TO TAX AND LOAN IS SHOWN IN THEIR RECORDS. THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS CONFIRMED BY FILI NG CONFIRMATION AND THE AO CANNOT ASK FOR THE SOURCE OF SOURCE. THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION )P) LTD., 159 ITR 78, IN WHICH THE CREDITORS WERE FOUND TO BE ASSESSE D TO TAX AND SOME OF THE NOTICES U/S. 131 RETURNED UN-SERVED. THE TRIBUNAL DELETED T HE ADDITION BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE DISCHARGED THE BURDEN U/S. 68 OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE CREDITOR HA S FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICE U/S. 133(6), IS NO GROUND TO MAKE ADDITION. THE ADD ITION WAS, ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 6. THE LD. DR, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPLETE DETAILS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO AND THE CONCER NED PARTY HAS FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 133(6) OF THE IT ACT. THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDIT AS GENUINE IN THE MATTER. 7 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THA T THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ISSUE ONLY WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE LO AN AND THAT NOTICE U/S. 133(6) HAS NOT BEEN RESPONDED TO BY THE CREDITOR AT THE ASSESS MENT STAGE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR AN D ITS CREDITWORTHINESS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT PROPER REPLIES / EXPLANATIONS AND CO NFIRMATION WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO AND THE SAME WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) ALSO AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, ON WHICH REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR. THE AO IN THE R EMAND REPORT MERELY REITERATED THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BUT DID NOT DISPUTE THE EVIDENCE AND REPLIES FILED AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 133(6) WAS DEFECTIVE AND WAS SENT AT THE EARLIER ADDRESS O F THE CREDITOR WHICH WAS CORRECTED IN THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THE NOTICE WAS INCORRECT AND SENT AT THE WRONG ADDRESS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FRESH CONFIRM ATION, CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE CREDITOR WAS NOTIFIED, BUT THE AO DID NOT SEND ANY NOTICE AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT NO FRESH EVIDEN CES WERE FILED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. 8. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IN THE GROUND OF A PPEAL OF REVENUE, THE REVENUE 8 CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO T HE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN AND THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) HAS NOT BEEN RESPONDED TO BY THE CREDITOR. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE REPLY DATED 05.12.2007 WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, IN WHICH CONFIRMATION OF THE CREDITOR AND OT HER DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REFER SUCH DOCUMENTS IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER FILED REPLY DATED 11.12.2007 (PB-1 9) IN WHICH COMPLETE DETAILS OF LOAN TAKEN FROM M/S. ABHINAV VINIMAY PVT. LTD., KOL KATA WAS FILED SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. THE AO DID NOT DISPUTE BOTH THE ABOVE REP LIES OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE REMAND REPORT AND EVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT NOTHING WAS EXAMINED TO PROVE THAT THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF LOAN, WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE OR WOULD NOT PROVE GENUINENE SS OF LOAN IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEE FILED COMPLETE DETAILS AT THE ASSESSMENT S TAGE AS WELL AS APPELLATE STAGE TO PROVE THE GENUINE LOAN IN THE MATTER. THEREFORE, TH E LD. CIT(A) CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES ONUS IS DISCHARGED TO PROVE THE GENU INE LOAN IN THE MATTER. MOREOVER, CALLING FOR THE REMAND REPORT AT THE APPELLATE STAG E WOULD PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT VIOLATED RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. WE HAVE ALRE ADY REFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S. AAKAR CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. (SUPR A) AND KULDEEP INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION (SUPRA) IN SUPPORT OF OUR FINDINGS. FUR THER, WE MAY ALSO NOTE THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT THAT DEFECTIVE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) HAD BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO REPRODUCED THIS NOTICE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH WAS SENT TO THE CREDITOR AT BRABOURNE ROAD, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA. THIS WAS 9 THE INITIAL ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E CONFIRMATION OF THIS CREDITOR, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) WOULD, THUS, PROVE THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY DATED 05.12.2007 BEFORE THE AO, OTHERWISE, THERE WAS NO R EASON FOR THE AO TO SEND THIS NOTICE AT THE ADDRESS OF THE CREDITOR. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER FILED REPLY TO THE QUERY OF THE AO ON 11.12.2007, IN WHICH FRESH CONFIRMATION A LONG WITH OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE ALSO FILED WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN FRESH ADDRESS OF THE CREDITOR. THE AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 31.12.2007, BUT DID NOT ISSUE NOTICE AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE CREDITOR. HE H AS RELIED UPON THE RETURN OF THE NOTICE, WHICH WAS SENT AT THE INITIAL ADDRESS OF TH E CREDITOR. SINCE NO EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO TO ISSUE NOTICE AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE CREDITOR, THEREFORE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSES SEE IN THIS REGARD. FURTHER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT THAT THE AVERMENTS CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE WERE INCORRECT. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED LO AN OF RS.18,00,000/- FROM THE CREDITOR, BUT THE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REVEALS THAT THE AO CALLED FOR THE INFORMATION FROM THE CREDITOR REGARDING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED OF RS.30,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONE Y. FURTHER, THE DETAILS WERE STATED TO BE SUBJECTED TO VERIFICATION BY THE DELHI POLICE. THESE FACTS NOTED IN THE NOTICE WOULD PROVE THAT INCORRECT INFORMATION WAS C ALLED FOR BY THE AO FROM THE CREDITOR. SINCE THE AVERMENTS CONTAINED IN THE NOTI CE WERE INCORRECT AND NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO VERIFY THE INFORMATION BY ISSUING NOTICE AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF 10 THE CREDITOR, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AD DITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE FINDING OF FACTS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM HIS FINDINGS AND DIS MISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 7 TH MARCH, 2012 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY