M/s Jamuna Estates Pvt Ltd, Cuttack V. CIT, Cuttack

ITA 424/CTK/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4450 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K GAUTAMS K DASH
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ KATARKA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 14A; 263; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , S HRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T.A.NO. 424/CTK/2010 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 M/S.JAMUNA ESTATES PVT. LTD., ADITYA COMPLEX, CHAULIAGUNJA, CUTTACK 753 001. PAN: AAACJ 5663 P AND 33A J.L.NEHTRU ROAD, 10 TH FLOOR, FL AT NO.9, KOLKATA 700 071. - - - VERSUS - COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CUTTACK RANGE, CUTTACK. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI MANOJ KATARKA, AR / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SHRI A.K.GAUTAM/S.K.DASH, DR / ORDER . . , , SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGITATES THE ORDER U/S.263 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND MATERIAL EVIDENCES ON RECORD THE ACTION OF THE CIT TO I NITIATE REVISION PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) IS BAD IN LAW. THE RE VISION PROCEEDIN GS INITIATED BY THE CIT IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWERS U/S . 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TO TREAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IS INCORRECT IN LAW. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE CIT IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWERS U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT POINTING OUT TO ISSUES ON WHICH DELIBERATIONS WERE NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRAMING THE I.T.A.NO. 424/CTK/2010 2 ORDER U/S 143(3) AND TO TREAT THE ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IS CONTRARY TO THE FACT AND MATERIALS EVIDENCE ON RECORD AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED AFTER CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE ISSUES FORMING PART OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THE SHO W - CAUSE IS BAD IN LAW. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE EASE THE ACTION OF THE CIT IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) AND FRAMING RE - ASSESSMENT BY VIRTUE OF HIS POWERS U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND ERRONEOUS IN LAW. THE ORDER FRAMED BY THE CIT U/S . 263 BY RE - COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS BEYOND THE ISSUES IN THE STATUTORY NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM U/S . 263 AND THEREFORE BAD IN LAW. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ACTION OF THE CI T TO TREAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ERRONEOUS AND THEREFORE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S . 14A READ WITH RULE 8D AND TO HOLD THAT SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT WARRANTE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND BEYOND THE POWERS U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO HAVING TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW WHICH CANNOT BE TERMED TO BE A N IMPOSSIBLE VIE W, THE ACTION OF THE CIT U/S 263 TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ON SUBSTITUTION OF HIS OWN VIEW IS NOT TENABLE IN LAW. THE ACTION OF THE CIT TO DISALLOW THE INTEREST PAYMENT OF 6 , 17 ,404 TO BE NOT ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS OF THE A SSESSEE IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS ON RECORDS AND ERRONEOUS IN LAW. THE ACTION OF THE CI T TO DISALLOW THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF BANK CHARGES FOR 33 ,537 TO HOLD THAT THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE IS CON TRARY TO THE FACTS ON RECORDS AND ERRONEOUS IN LAW. THE ACTION OF THE CIT TO DISALLOW THE INTEREST EXPENSES OF 6 , 17 ,404 AND BANK CHARGES OF 33 ,537 WHILE RE - COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER U/S . 263 BASING I.T.A.NO. 424/CTK/2010 3 HIS FINDING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORDS AND IS ERRONEOUS. 3. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK WHICH INTER ALIA INCORPORATES SHOW - CAUSE NOTIC E ISSUED BY THE CIT U/S.263 AND COPY OF REPLY TO THE SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE ON PAGES 5 TO 20 OF THE PB. THE VARIOUS RECEIPTS AS DULY INCORPORATED IN THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE ALSO BEEN FURNISHED IN THE PB IN THE CASE O THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2005 - 06, THE ISSUE REGARDING THE INCOME TO BE COMPUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 WHICH ORDER IS PLACED ON PAGES 67 TO 70 OF THE PB. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED A SSESSMENT YEAR ALSO COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A THEREFORE SETTLES THE ISSUE AS ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS AN ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT WAS SUPER IMPOSED BY THE LEARNED CIT IN HIS REVISIO NARY POWERS U/S.263. HE HAS NOT ONLY OPINED ABOUT THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR BUT HAS SOUGHT TO CONFIRM THAT ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPUTING THE ASSESSMENT WH ICH VIEW WAS ONE POSSIBLE VIEW REMAINS TO BE ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL THEREFORE CANNOT BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN AN UNTENABLE VIEW UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T.ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS FILED THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A.BUILDERS LTD., V. CIT ( 288 ITR 1), WHEREIN THE INTEREST FREE LOAN GIVEN TO A SISTER CONCERN HAS BEEN HELD TO BE FOR ACQUISITION OF SHARES FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE TO BE ALLOWED AS CLAIMED. THE LEARNED CIT THEREFORE, ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF I NTEREST AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WHEN THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO OBTAIN LOAN WAS AGAINST THE HOUSE I.T.A.NO. 424/CTK/2010 4 PROPERTY AND WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARES CANNOT BE LOST SIGHT OF AT ANY POI NT OF TIME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, PROCEEDED TO COMPUTE TAXABILITY OF THE INTEREST U/S.14A BY APPLYING RULE 8D WHICH THE LEARNED CIT FOUND AS ERROR OF LAW ON FACTS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ARGUED THAT THE LEARNED CIT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH T HAT EVEN IF AN ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED HOW CAN IT BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE INSOFAR AS THE STATUTORY DEDUCTION ALLOWED BY LAW HAVE BEEN DONE AWAY WITH BY THE LEARNED CIT BY ENHANCING THE INCOME ON IDENTICAL FACTS, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE QUOTED THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD., V. CIT (243 ITR 83) WHICH CLEARLY INDICATE THAT WHEN THERE ARE TWO VIEWS POSSIBLE AND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUSTAINABLE UNDER LAW, THE VIEW IMPOSED BY THE LEARNED CIT CANNOT BE THR UST UPON UNLESS OF COURSE BOTH AN ERROR AS WELL AS A PREJUDICE TO THE REVENUE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT. HE ARGUED THAT THE ERROR WAS SET RIGHT BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE THER EFORE COULD NOT BE PUSHED DOWN UPON TO THE ASSESSEE AS WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. G.K.KABRA (211 ITR 336) WHEN AN ASSESSEE MUST BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BY THE LEARNED CIT WITH REGARD TO THE ERROR WHICH HE PROPOSE S TO REVISE AND NOT FORMULATE HIS OWN COMPUTATION OF INCOME BY DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT IT AS IT IS BY ISSUING DEMAND ORDER. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING IS NOT THE SAME AS REQUIRED U/S.263 THEREFORE MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT MONIES BORROWED FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES IN COMPANIES TO ACQUIRE CONTROLLING INTEREST HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO BAR IN SECTIO N 36 FOR ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID FOR CAPITAL BORROWED WHICH HAS BEEN USED FOR THE PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSETS NAMELY, SHARES. THIS WAS ALSO I.T.A.NO. 424/CTK/2010 5 HELD BY HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RAJEEVA LOCHAN KANORIA (208 ITR 616). HE HAS ALSO FURNI SHED THE COPIES OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ALONG WITH MEMORANDUM OF ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY COMPLYING TO THE CARRYING OUT THE MAIN OBJECT BEING PURCHASE, ACQUIRE, TAKE ON LEASE LAND, BUILDING OR DEVELOP THE SAME AND D ISPOSE OF OR MAINTAIN IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. HE PRAYED THAT A SUITABLE DIRECTION MAY BE GIVEN IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE TREATMENT OF INCOME FROM RENT AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY OR BUSINESS HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY PLETHORA OF JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WHICH REQUIRES DUE CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH OPPORTUNITY HAS NOT BEEN AFFORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER HIS REVISIONARY POWERS BUT ONLY DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MODIFY THE DEMAND IN THE LINES STATED IN HIS ORDER. HE PRAYED THAT SUCH DEMAND NOTIFIED BY THE LEARNED CIT MAY NOT BE APPEALABLE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF I.T.ACT,1961. 4. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 263 ARE VERY CLEAR . BEING A SENIOR AUTHORITY AND UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 263 THE LEARNED CIT , HAVING OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, HE AFT ER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH ENQUIRY AS HE DEEMED NECESSARY, PASS ED THE ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE JUSTIF IED INCLUDING MODIFYING, ENHANCING OR CANCELLING THE ORDER AND D IRECTING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT BE UPHELD INSOFAR AS THE LEARNED CIT SOUGHT TO RECOMPUTE THE INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T.ACT AND ALSO CALCULATE DEMAND OF TAX INCLUDING INTEREST UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTIONS 234A, 234B AND 234C WAS THEREFORE UNDER THE LEGAL I.T.A.NO. 424/CTK/2010 6 PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION. HE EVEN MARKED IT FOR DISPOSAL UNDER SECTION 263 AS PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED . 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD. ON OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 HAD RIGHTLY BEEN INVOKED INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO TAX THE INTEREST INCOME U NDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A WHICH ISSUE STOOD DEALT W ITH BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. AN ERROR WAS, THEREFORE , SOUGHT TO BE CORRECTED WHICH HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE LEARNED CIT UNDER SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 263. HOWEVER, DEFINING THE PREJUDICE CAUSED TO THE REV ENUE , BEING THE SECOND LIMB OF INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 HAS BEEN BRUSHED ASIDE BY THE LEARNED CIT IN HIS ORDER AS CAN BE PERUSED. HE HAS PROCEEDED TO DISALLOW THE STATUTORY DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE TO AN ASSESSEE EITHER U/S.14A R.W.S. 36 IN PLACE OF OF SECTION 24. IT WAS NEVER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO MISINTERPRET THE LAW IN ORDER TO REDUCE ITS TAX LIABILITY WHEN THE MATERIAL FACTS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE INTEREST PAID ON THE LOAN ACQUIRED WAS NOT BY MISREPRESENTING THE FACTS TO THE BANKS. THE LEARNED CIT , THEREFORE WAS , WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION , TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL BY HOLDING THE VIEW AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS ERRONEOUS BUT IN TURN WAS TO ESTABLISH AS TO HOW THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS A VIEW NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW BUT WAS TO BE REPLACED BY A VIEW THRUST UPON BY HIM ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DIRECTING HIM TO DISALLOW THE STATUTORY DEDUCTION EITHER AS BUSINESS EXPENSE OR FROM INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE LEARNED COUNS EL BEFORE US HAS BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TAXABLE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IF PROPOSED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR TAXATION BY DENYING THE CLAIM OF INTEREST IS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND NOT BY PASSING AN ORDER WITH A VIE W TO BE ADOPTED AND I.T.A.NO. 424/CTK/2010 7 CREATE DEMAND, AS SUGGESTED BY THE LEARNED CIT. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE LEARNED CIT HAVING COMPUTED THE TAXABLE INCOME DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CREATE A DEMAND BY ISSUING THE DEMAND NOTICE BUT NOT FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE LINES EXPRESSED THEREIN. WE FIND THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPROPRIATE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IS INEXTRICABLY LINKED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE MAIN OBJECT INCORPORATED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. G.K.KABRA (SUPRA) WHICH CLEARLY ANALYSES THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD ALLOW AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE SAME AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS AFFORDED OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 263 IS ONE OF FACT WHICH WE AGREE TO THE PROPOSITION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LEARNED CIT HAS NOT DELIBERATED ON THE FACT THAT THE STATUTORY CLAIM OF DEDUCTIONS WHETHER CAN BE DENIED WITHOUT HE ARING THE ASSESSEE WOULD QUALIFY FOR EXPLANATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS SUCH WOULD BE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 263. THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING INTEREST ON THE BUSINESS OF TRUCK HIRING CHARGES AND INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A VIEW COMPLYING TO THE BUSINESS O BJECT AND INCIDENTAL TO MAIN OBJECT THEREFORE , JUSTIFIES THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM EXPENSES EITHER WAY WHEN SECTION 14A AND SECTION 24 REQUIRE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION TO BE STATUTORILY ALLOWED IRRESPECTIVE OF A CLAIM MADE THEREIN. THEREFORE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE REAL INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T.ACT, WE ARE INCLINED TO FIND FAVOUR IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE I.T.A.NO. 424/CTK/2010 8 ASSESSEE BE GIVEN BEFORE ADOPTING THE COMPUTATION BY THE LEARNED CIT BE AFFORDED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE FINALLY CREATING THE DEMAND WHICH IN OUR VIEW HAS BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE LEARNED CIT IN HIS ORDER AS WELL. THE DEMAND NOTICE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD ONLY BE SUBJECT TO APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DT. 21 ST APRIL, 2011 S D/ - S D/ - ( . . . ) , ( K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( ) DATE: 21 ST APRIL, 2011 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . / THE APPELLANT : M/S.JAMUNA ESTATES PVT. LTD., ADITYA COMPLEX, CHAULIAGUNJA, CUTTACK 75 3 001. AND 33A J.L.NEHTRU ROAD, 10 TH FLOOR, FLAT NO.9, KOLKATA 700 071. 2 / THE RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CUTTACK RANGE, CUTTACK. 3 . / THE CIT, 4 . ( )/ THE CIT(A), 5 . / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, [ ] SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ( ), ( H.K.PADHEE ), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY.