M/s. Tyazhprom (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4400/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 440020114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 30-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEVI SHARAN SINGH
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 10(14); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, J.M. AND SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. ITA NOS. 4400,4401/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08, 2008-09 M/S. TYAZHPROM (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DEPUTY COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX G.N. ADVOCATE, 605, CIR CLE, 16(1), NEW DELHI. ANSAL CHAMBERS-II, 6, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI 110 066. PAN AAACT2843D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY:- SHRI G. N. GUPTA, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY:- SH. DEVI SHARAN SINGH, SR. DR O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4400/DEL/2011 THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XIX, NEW DELHI CHALLENGING THE CONFIRMATION OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 22,79,123/- BE ING COMPENSATION PAID TO M/S HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LTD. PURSUANT TO THE SETTL EMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD DISALLO WED THE CLAIM BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS :- FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESEE AND FROM ANNEXURE D OF 3CD REPORT IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON THE INTEREST AMOUNT OF RS. 22,79,123/- PAID TO M/S. HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES ON SETTLEMENT AS DIRECTED BY ARBITRATION . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE SAME AND ALSO T O EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE CLAIM OF EXPENSE COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. VIDE SUBMISSION DATED 13.11.2009 THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS O F THE SAME AND IT ITA NOS.,4400,4401/DEL/2011 AY 2007-08, 2008-09 TYAZHPROM (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT PAGE 2 OF 8 HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT RS. 60 LAKHS HAS BEEN PAID TO M/S. HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES IN ACCORDANCE TO THE DIRECTION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI VIDE SETTLEMENT ORDER DATED 14.5.200 7. THE COPY OF TERMS OF SETTLEMENT OMP NO. 281 OF 2003 WAS ALSO FURNISHE D. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE BEEN ASCERTAI NED WHICH ARE THAT M/S. HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LTD. HAD SUPPLIED HAMMER CRUSHERS AND OTHER ITEMS TO BE ASSESSEE ON 5.12.1996. THE ASSESS EE MADE THE PAYMENT TO HYDERABAD INDUSTRY LTD., EXCEPT THE RETE NTION AMOUNT OF RS. 42,64,673/- WHICH WAS WITHHELD DUE TO SOME DISPUTES WITH THE ASSESSEE AND SUPPLIER IN RELATION TO SUPPLY OF THE EQUIPMENTS. THE SUPPLIER IN TERMS OF THE PURCHASE ORDERS INITIATED ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS AND ARBITRATOR PASSED AN AWARD DATED 22 .4.2003 DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO PAY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 38,44,264/- AL ONGWITH SOME INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF ARBI TRATION BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI BUT REACHED TO THE TERMS OF SET TLEMENT VIDE SETTLEMENT DATED 14.5.2007. IN ACCORDANCE TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO PAY RS. 60,00,000/- TO M/S. HYDERABAD IN DUSTRIES LTD. IN THIS YEAR I.E. F.Y. 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIME D THE AMOUNT OF RS. 22,79,123/- AS PROJECT EXPENSES SETTLEMENT AMOUNT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN CLAIMED IN PAST YEARS. IN ANNEXURE D OF 3 CD REPORT THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED AS INTEREST AMOU NT PAID TO M/S. HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LTD. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THIS AM OUNT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED BECAUSE OF TWO FACTS, FIRST BEING THA T NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED ON THIS AMOUNT AND OTHER ONE THAT THE LIAB ILITY TOWARDS THIS EXPENSE CRYSTALLIZED ON 14.5.2007 AND HENCE THE SAM E CANNOT BE CLAIMED IN THIS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNIS H ANY COGENT EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. HENCE, THE CLAIM OF THI S AMOUNT OF RS. 22,79,123/- IS HEREBY DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE T OTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. IN THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1) TH E AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME AND IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271(1). THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AT PARA 33.1 TO 34 HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 33.1 IT IS SETTLED NOW THAT CLAIMING EXCESSIVE DED UCTIONS ALSO AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. FALSEHOOD IN ACCOUNTS CAN TAKE EITHER OF THE TWO FORMS: EITHER AN ITEM OF RECEIPT MAY BE SUPPRES SED FRAUDULENTLY, OR AN ITEM OF EXPENDITURE MAY BE FALSELY CLAIMED. BOTH TYPES ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE INCOME. BOTH TYPES AMOUNT TO CON CEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF ONES INCOME AS WELL AS FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. PENALTY MAY BE IMPOSED FOR E ITHER OR BEOTH SUCH ITA NOS.,4400,4401/DEL/2011 AY 2007-08, 2008-09 TYAZHPROM (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT PAGE 3 OF 8 ATTEMPTS (CIT VS. INDIA SEA FOODS,1976 105 ITR 708, KERALA; NAGIN CHAND SHIV SAHAI VS CIT (1938) 6 ITR 534 (LAH); CIT VS. GATES FOAN AND RUBBER COMPANY (1973) 91 ITR 467 (KER). 33.2. IN A NUTSHELL, THE AO HAS CONCLUSIVELY PROV ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PATENTLY INCORRECT CLAIM, IN TERMS OF INEL IGIBLE LIABILITY AS DETAILED ABOVE, TO EVADE THE TAXES. THERE WAS A DEL IBERATE ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE. THE FINDINGS OF THE AO WERE NO T AT ALL CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 34. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION FACTS, CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LEGAL POSITION CITED, AO IS JUSTIFIED IN LEVYIN G THE PENALTY U/S 271(1) OF THE I.T. ACT IN RESPECT OF LIABILITY OF RS. 22,79,123/- NOT CRYSTALLIZED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0 8. 3. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SHRI G.N. GUPTA AND SHRI DEVI SHARAN SINGH, LD. SR. DR ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESEE MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. LATER THE SAME WAS WITHDRAW N. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT A) SATISFACTION OF THE AO IS NOT DISCERNABLE FROM T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HENCE THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND SUB SEQUENT LEVY IS BAD IN LAW. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MS. MADHUSHREE GUPTA, BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC V S. UOI 317 ITR 107 (DELHI) SPECIFICALLY AT PAGE 138 WHEREIN IT IS HEL D AS FOLLOWS:- WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ARGUMENT OF LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE DEPARTMENT IS MISCONCEIVED. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE SUPREME COURT HAVE REPEATEDLY EMPHASIZED THE WORD SATISFACTION AND T HE SATISFACTION IS NOT TOBE IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT MUST BE RE FLECTED FROM THE RECORD. IT IS A SETTLED RULE OF LAW THAT THE AUTHORITIES PERFORMI NG QUASI-JUDICIAL OR JUDICIAL FUNCTION MUST GIVEN REASONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS ORDER SO AS TO PROVIDE IN THE ORDER ITSELF THE GROUND WHICH WEIGHED WITH THE AUTH ORITIES CONCERNED FOR ITA NOS.,4400,4401/DEL/2011 AY 2007-08, 2008-09 TYAZHPROM (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT PAGE 4 OF 8 PASSING AN ORDER ADVERSE TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASS ESSEE. FURTHERMORE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1) ARE PENAL IN NATURE T HUS MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED THE ELEMENT OF SATISFACTION SHOULD BE AP PARENT FROM THE ORDER ITSELF. IT IS NOT FOR THE COURTS TO GO INTO THE MIND OF THE AUTHORITIES OR TRACE THE REASONS FROM THE FILES OF SUCH AUTHORITIES. B) THAT SUB CLAUSE (C) OF EXPLANATION 4 TO SECTION 271(1), WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, MANDATES THAT WHEN THER E IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RETURNED INCOME AND THE ASSESSED INCOME , NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED. IN OTHER WORDS THE PENALTY LEVIABLE WHEN CA LCULATED WOULD BE ZERO. HE ARGUED THAT ONLY THE QUANTUM OF CARRY FORWARD LOSSE S UNDERWENT A CHANGE DUE TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE COMPENSATION PAID TO M/S. HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LTD. BUT INCOME RETURNED AND THE INCOME ASSESSED REMAINED THE SAME. C) THE DISALLOWANCE IN QUESTION WAS MADE ON TWO GRO UNDS I.E. A) NO TDS HAS BEEN MADE AND HENCE SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS APPLICABLE B) THE LIABILITY HAD NOT CRYSTALISED AND HENCE NOT ALLOWABLE DURING THE YEAR. ON THE ISSUE OF TDS IT IS ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO E LEMENT OF INTEREST IN THE COMPENSATION PAID AND HENCE NO TDS NEED BE MADE . ON THE ISSUE OF YEAR OF ALLOWABILITY, HE SUBMITS TH AT IT IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO C ASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND HENCE NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. MANILAL T ARACHAND [2002] 254 ITR 630 (GUJ) ITA NOS.,4400,4401/DEL/2011 AY 2007-08, 2008-09 TYAZHPROM (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT PAGE 5 OF 8 6. LD. DR PREFERRED TO THE AUDIT REPORT U/S 44A B AND SPECIFICALLY TO ANNEXURE D AND SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE THE SPECIFI C OBSERVATIONS OF THE AUDITORS THAT NO TDS HAS BEEN MADE ON THE INTEREST AMOUNT PAID TO M/S. HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSCIOUSLY AND DELIBERATELY MADE A FALSE CLAIM INSTEAD OF DISALLOWING THE SAME U/S 40( A)(IA). HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESEE IGNORED THE LEGAL ADVICE AND HENCE IT H AS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS WARRANTING LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ). 7. IN REPLY THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IF THE EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE ONLY IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE DURING THE CURRENT YEAR DOES NOT ARISE. EVEN OTHERWISE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT WHAT WAS PAID WAS COMPENSATION AND N O TAX NEED TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AS NO INTEREST ELEMENT WAS INVOL VED. 8. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS WE HOLD A S FOLLOWS:- THE STAND OF THE AO IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUES TION HAS NOT BE CRYSTALISED DURING THE YEAR AND IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE IMPUGNED CURRENT YEAR. IF SO THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE DURING THE YEAR DOES NOT ARISE. NOW THE ISSUE IS WHETHER PENALTY CAN BE LEVI ED FOR THE REASON OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHEN THERE IS A DISPUTE REGARDING THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CLAIM IS ALLOWABLE. THE ASSESSEES SU BMISSION IS THAT THE LIABILITY CRYSTALISED DURING THE YEAR FOR THE REASO N THAT THE CORRESPONDENCE AND NEGOTIATIONS WERE UNDERTAKEN THROUGHOUT THE YEA R AND THAT SUBSTANTIALLY AGREEMENTS WERE REACHED DURING THE YE AR AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE LIABILITY CRYSTALISED ONLY ON SIGNING OF T HE SETTLEMENT DEED AND THEREAFTER FILING THE SAME BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THE AOS CONTENTION IS THAT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS FIL ED BEFORE THE HONBLE ITA NOS.,4400,4401/DEL/2011 AY 2007-08, 2008-09 TYAZHPROM (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT PAGE 6 OF 8 HIGH COURT ON 14.5.2007 AND HENCE THE LIABILITY DID NOT CRYSTALLIZSE DURING THE YEAR. 9. IN OUR VIEW THIS IS AN ISSUE WHERE THE QUES TION IS THE YEAR OF ALLOWABILITY OF THE PARTICULAR CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E. THERE IS A GENUINE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THIS ISSUE WHICH IS DEBATA BLE. JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE CLAIM DURING THE CURRENT FINA NCIAL YEAR AND THIS CLAIM HAS BEEN DISALLOWED, IN OUR VIEW PENALTY CAN NOT BE IMPOSED ON THE GROUND OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. 10. THE HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. MANILAL TARACHAND [2002] 254 ITR 630 (GUJ) HELD AS FOLLOWS :- IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AS RECORDED BY THE INCO ME-TAX OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FEEL THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE W HERE PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE ON THE CHARGE OF EITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME. THE DISPUTE IN THE ASSESSMENT, BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT , WAS TO THE EFFECT AS TO IN WHICH YEAR THE COMPENSATION RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESEE WAS TAXABLE. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER A BELIEF THAT HE WOULD BE LIABLE TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX ONLY ON RECEIP T OF THE COMPENSATION AND ACCORDINGLY HAD SHOWN THE LIABILITY TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1975-76. THOUGH F OR THE PURPOSES OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WO ULD BE WITHIN HIS POWERS TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1973-74, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT PENAL TY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) COULD BE LEVIED FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT Y EAR. 11. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PROPOSITION LAI D DOWN THEREIN WE ALLOW THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CANCEL THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C). AS WE HAVE ADJUDICATE D THE ISSUE ON MERITS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE, WE DO NOT EXPRESS ANY VIEW O N THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS RAISED BY BOTH SIDES AS IT WOULD BE AN ACADEMIC EXE RCISE. ITA NOS.,4400,4401/DEL/2011 AY 2007-08, 2008-09 TYAZHPROM (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT PAGE 7 OF 8 ITA 4401/DEL/2011 12. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(APPEALS)-XIX, NEW DELHI DATED 12.7.2011 PERT AINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-XIX, NEW DELHI ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 32,45,265/- P AID AS LIVING ALLOWANCE TO RUSSIAN EXPERTS BY INVOKING THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 40(1))(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THAT THE AFORESAID SUM WAS EXEMPT IN THE HANDS OF THE RUSSIA N EXPERT U/S 10(14) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN VIEW OF THE D ECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. V. GO SLINO MARIO AND OTHERS 241 ITR 312 AND CIT & ANOTHER V. MORGENSTERN WERNER 259 ITR 486. 13. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), NEW DELHI PASSED AN ORDER U/S 264 (1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON 23.7.2003 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99, 99-00,00-01 AND 01- 02 WHEREIN HE HAS HELD THAT PAYMENT OF LIVING ALLOW ANCE FOR FOOD AND OTHER OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES OF THE EXPERTS, I.E. OF RUSS IAN EXPATRIATES, IS EXEMPT IN THE HANDS OF THE RUSSIAN EXPERTS U/S 10(14) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT. WHEN THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) HAS TAKEN SUCH A VIEW IN HIS ORDER U/S 264(1) AND ALSO HELD THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOSLINO MARIO AND OTHERS 241 IT R 312 IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE REVENUE CA NNOT BE SEEN CONTENDED OTHERWISE IN ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE US. WHEN THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) IS OF THE VIEW THAT NO TDS NEED BE MADE O N THESE LIVING ALLOWANCES PAID TO THE RUSSIAN EXPERTS, THE QUESTIO N OF SUSTAINING, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) DOES NOT ARISE. THE CONT ENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT THE ORDER OF THE FIRST LD. CIT(TDS) IS FOR CERTAIN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND HENCE CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR IS DEVOID OF MERITS ON THE ITA NOS.,4400,4401/DEL/2011 AY 2007-08, 2008-09 TYAZHPROM (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT PAGE 8 OF 8 ISSUE INVOLVED IS THE SAME. IN THE RESULT WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) AND ALLOW GROUND OF THE ASSESEE. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH OCTOBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUHDIR) ( J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 20 TH OCTOBER, 2014 *VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR