M/s Suraj Bhan Agencies (P) Ltd., Agra V. I.T.O., Ward-4(4), Agra

ITA 55/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0738 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KK MISHRA
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.54/AGR/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S PEE CEE COSMA SOPE LIMITED, VS. JOINT COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX, G-10/8, PADAMDEEP TOWER, RANGE-4, AGRA. SANJAY PLACE, AGRA. (PAN : AAACP 7280 L). ITA NO.55/AGR/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S SURAJ BHAN AGENCIES (P) LTD., VS. INCOME TAX O FFICER, 19/9, KHATENA ROAD, WARD-4 (4), AGRA. LOHAMANDI, AGRA. (PAN : AABCS 9058 E). (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PANKAJ GARGH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. MISHRA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 19.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2013 ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS, BOTH DATED 31.01.2013, PASSED BY THE LD. CI T(A)-II, AGRA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10. 2 ITA NOS.54 & 55/AGRA/2013 A.YS. 2009-10 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO.54/AGRA/2013 IN THE CASE OF M/S PEE CEE COSMA SOPE LIMITED. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS S EVEN GROUNDS OF APPEAL. HOWEVER, EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS IN RESPECT O F ADDITION OF RS.28,14,174/- INVOKING SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF LAUNDRY SO AP AND WASHING POWER, DETERGENT CAKE ETC. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PAID CERTAIN AMOUNTS TO THE CONSIGNEES TO WHOM THEY HAVE SOLD THEIR GOODS. THESE AMOUNTS WERE CLA IMED AS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THEM. HOWEVER, THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED B Y CONSIGNEES BUT A FIXED PERCENTAGE WAS PAID IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ACTUAL EXPE NSES INCURRED BY THEM. THEREFORE, AS PER THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. SINCE THE A SSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AND HAS FAILED TO DO SO, THE A.O. MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.28,14,174/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 4. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AS UNDER:- (PARAGRAPH NO.5, PAGE NOS.7 & 8) 3 ITA NOS.54 & 55/AGRA/2013 A.YS. 2009-10 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. I FIN D THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS ADJ UDICATED UPON BY THE CIT(A)-II, AGRA WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS HAS BEEN GIVEN. I HAVE ANALYZED THE MATTER AND FIND THAT AFTER GOI NG THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR IT IS AB UNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE EXPENSES REIMBURSED HAVE NO CO-RELAT ION WITH THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CONSIGNEE AGENTS. THIS PO SITION IS CLEAR FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF ACCOUNT AND OF THE DETAIL S OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THEM ON SALES MADE ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THEM ARE MUCH MORE THAN THE EXPENSES REIMBURSED TO THEM AT FIXED COST RATE STRUCTURE. EXPENSES AT THE COST RA TE ARE REIMBURSED TO THE CONSIGNEE AGENT ONLY TO HAVE CONT ROL OVER THE EXPENSES. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AS IT IS NOT LINKED TO TH AT ACTUAL EXPENSES IS NOTHING BUT COMMISSIONS AS IT IS LINKED TO SALE MADE BY THE CONSIGNEE AGENTS. THEREFORE THE APPELLANT W AS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THESE PAYMENT WHICH IT FAIL ED TO DO. THE AO HAS RIGHTLY APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 40A(IA) WHILE MAKING THAT DISALLOWANCE. THE GROUNDS ARE DI SMISSED. THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE F OR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VI EWS OF MY PREDECESSOR AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO IS CONFIRMED AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL 2 TO 5 ARE DISMISSE D. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION WHETHER THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURES ARE IN NATURE OF COMMISSION OR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITUR ES. TO UNDERSTAND NATURE OF TRANSACTION FIRST OF ALL WE HAVE TO SEE DICTIONARY MEANING OF COMMISSION. THE RELATED MEANING AS PER DIFFERENT DICTIONARIES ARE A S UNDER :- 4 ITA NOS.54 & 55/AGRA/2013 A.YS. 2009-10 I) AS PER THE LAW LEXICON COMMISSION AGENT : ONE WHO SALES OR BUYS GOODS FOR ANOTHER AND RECEIVES BY WAY OF REMUNERATION A COMMISSION OR PER CENTAGE UPON THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN EACH TRANSACTION. II) AS PER OXFORD DICTIONARY PAYMENT TO AN AGENT FOR SELLING GOODS OR SERVICES. III) BY FARLEX DICTIONARY A FEE PAID BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF THE SALE MADE B Y AN EMPLOYEE OR AGENT, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM REGULAR PAYMENTS OF WA GES OR SALARY. IV) AS PER WEBSTERS DICTIONARY THE FEE GIVEN AN AGENT OR SALES PERSON FOR HIS OR H ER SERVICES. V) AS PER DICTIONARY OF CULTUIRAL LITERACY ECNOMICS A FEE PAID TO A BROKER OR OTHER FINANCIAL AGENTS FO R NEGOTIATING A SALE. THE FEE IS BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF SALE PRICE. 5.1 IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DICTIONARY MEANING, IF WE SEE THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED RS.28,14,174/- AS REVENUE EXPENSES ON CONSIGNMENT SALES IN PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT. IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID COMMISSION ON SALE AND WERE SEPAR ATELY ACCOUNTED FOR UNDER THE HEAD COMMISSION ON SALE OF RS.48,55,646/-IN PROFIT LOSS ACCOUNT. THE CONSIGNEE AGENTS MAKE THE SALE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY TO THE DISTRIBUTOR/DEALER/RETAILER APPOINTED BY THEM FOR W HICH THEY ARE PAID COMMISSION AT 5 ITA NOS.54 & 55/AGRA/2013 A.YS. 2009-10 THE FIXED PERCENTAGE AS PER THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THEM AND TDS IS DEDUCTED ON THE SAID COMMISSION. NO DISPUTE ON THIS ISSUE. GOODS ARE SENT TO THE CONSIGNEE AGENTS FROM MALANPUR UNIT FOR WHICH THE P RIMARY FREIGHT IS PAID ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THIS FREIGHT PAID I S REIMBURSED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY WAY OF CREDIT NOTE. NO DISPUTE OF THIS FACT ALSO. THE SALE OF U.P., RAJASTHAN AND GUJARAT ARE THROUGH CONSIGNEE AGENTS. AGREEMENTS ARE EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE CONSIGNEE AGEN TS. THE IMPORTANT CLAUSE FOR CONSIDERATION IS THAT IN CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS SERVICES RENDERED , THE SECOND PARTY SHALL BE COMMISSION @ 1% (ONE) ON THE VALUE O F THE SALES MADE BY THE SECOND PARTY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR. IN ADDITION THE FIRST PARTY SHALL ALSO REIMBURSE TO THE SECOND PARTY THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM (TO BE DERIVED ON FIXED COST STRUCTURE BASIS) . THAT ON THE RECEIPT OF GOODS BY THE CONSIGNEE AG ENTS TILL THE SALES MADE BY THEM, THE CONSIGNEE AGENTS INCUR CERT AIN EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH ARE OTHERWISE TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MAKE DIRECT SALE AT THESE PLAC ES. THE NATURE OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CONSIGNEE AGENTS AND REIMBURSED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS PER THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THEM ARE :- A) UNLOADING EXPENSES ON RECEIPT OF GOODS FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. B) LOADING EXPENSES WHEN THE GOODS ARE SENT BY THE CONSIGNEE AGENTS FOR SALE TO DISTRIBUTOR/DEALER/RETAILER. 6 ITA NOS.54 & 55/AGRA/2013 A.YS. 2009-10 C) CARTAGE PAID ON DISPATCH OF GOODS/SALE TO DISTRI BUTOR/DEALER/RETAILER. D) TRAVELING EXPENSES OF THE STAFF KEPT BY CONSIGNE E AGENTS OR SALARY OF THE SALES STAFF. THE CONSIGNEE AGENTS SENT THE MONTHLY DETAILS OF SALES ON SALE PATTI. ON THE SALE PATTI THE CONSIGNEE AGENT DEDUCT S THEIR COMMISSION ON SALES AND THE EXPENSES AT THE FIXED COST RATE STRUC TURE AS PER AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY WAY OF CREDIT NOTE AMOUNT FOR T HEIR EXPENSES AS PR SALE PATTI, THOUGH THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE, ARE MUC H MORE THAN THE EXPENSES ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. COPIES OF TH EIR LEDGER ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THEM ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE COM PANY HAVE BEEN FILED AND ARE PUT ON RECORD. IT IS ALSO TO NOTE THAT THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CONSIGNEE AGENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE FROM THE SALE AMOUNT COLLECTED BY THEM AS THERE ALWAYS REMAIN OUT STANDING BALANCE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOLLOWING POINTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE :- I) CONSIGNEE AGENTS ARE MAKING SALES ON BEHALF OF A SSESSEE COMPANY ON COMMISSION BASIS. II) CONSIGNEE AGENT INCURS EXPENSES ON SALES ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. III) CONSIGNEE AGENT MAINTAINS DAY TO DAY DETAILS O F EXPENSES INCURRED BY THEM FOR AND BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 7 ITA NOS.54 & 55/AGRA/2013 A.YS. 2009-10 IV) MONTHLY SALE PATTI IS SENT BY CONSIGNEE AGENTS ALONG WITH LEDGER ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED. V) IN SALE PATTI CONSIGNEE AGENT, FROM THE SALE AMO UNT DEDUCT THEIR COMMISSION AND EXPENSES WHICH THEY HAVE TO RECEIVE FROM THE AS SESSEE COMPANY ON THE BASIS OF FIXED COST RATE AS PER AGREEMENT. VI) ON RECEIPT OF SALE PATTI CREDIT NOTE FOR THE EX PENSES IS ISSUED. VII) IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AMOUNT OF CREDIT NOTE IS DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD EXPENSES ON CONSIGNMENT SALE. 5.2 THE COMMISSION IS SAID TO BE PAYMENT OF COMMISS ION IF IT IS EVIDENT THAT IT IS BEING PAID FOR SERVICE OF A PERSON PROVIDED IN RESP ECT OF SALE OF PRODUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS DEMONSTRATED BY FILING VARIOUS EVIDENCES AND MATERI AL OF WHICH COPIES HAVE BEEN PLACED IN PAPER BOOK. COPIES OF AGREEMENT, PAPER B OOK PAGE NOS. 1 TO 4, COPIES OF SALE PATTI PAGE NOS. 5 TO 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK, COPI ES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES PAGE NOS. 32 TO 50. ON PERUSAL OF AGREEMENT, WE NO TICE THAT AS PER CLAUSE-3 IN ADDITION TO 3% SALE, THE AGENT IS ENTITLED TO REIMB URSEMENT OF EXPENSES. THE RELEVANT ABSTRACT OF THE AGREEMENT IS REPRODUCED AS BELOW :- 1.5 THAT ON THE RECEIPT OF GOODS BY THE CONSIGNEE AGENTS TILL THE SALES MADE BY THEM, THE CONSIGNEE AGENTS INCURR CERTAIN E XPENSES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH ARE OTHERWISE TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE 8 ITA NOS.54 & 55/AGRA/2013 A.YS. 2009-10 COMPANY IF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MAKE DIRECT SALE AT THESE PLACES. THE NATURE OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CONSIGNEE AGENTS AND REIMBURSED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS PER THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETW EEN THEM ARE :- A) UNLOADING EXPENSES ON RECEIPT OF GOODS FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. B) LOADING EXPENSES WHEN THE GOODS ARE SENT BY THE CONSIGNEE AGENTS FOR SALE TO DISTRIBUTOR/DEALER/RETAILER. C) CARTAGE PAID ON DISPATCH OF GOODS/SALE TO DISTRI BUTOR/DEALER/RETAILER. D) TRAVELING EXPENSES OF THE STAFF KEPT BY CONSIGNE E AGENTS OR SALARY OF THE SALES STAFF. 1.6 THAT THE CONSIGNEE AGENTS SENT THE MONTHLY DETA ILS OF SALES ON SALE PATTI, COPY ENCLOSED (PAGE NO.5 TO 29) FOR KIND PE RUSAL OF YOUR GOODSELF. ON THE SALE PATTI THE CONSIGNEE AGENT DED UCTS THEIR COMMISSION ON SALES AND THE EXPENSES AT THE FIXED C OST RATE STRUCTURE AS PER AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY WAY OF CR EDIT NOTE AMOUNT FOR THEIR EXPENSES AS PR SALE PATTI, THOUGH THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE, ARE MUCH MORE THAN THE EXPENSES AC COUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. COPY OF THEIR LEDGER ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THEM ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE ENCLOSED (PAGE NO. 30 TO 50) IN SUPPORT OF THE SUBMISSION THAT THE EXPENSES INCUR BY THEM ARE MUCH MORE THAN THE EXPENSES REIMBURSED TO THEM BY WAY OF CREDIT NOTE. 1.7. IT IS IMPORTANT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE EXPEN SES INCURRED BY THE CONSIGNEE AGENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE FROM THE SALE AMOUNT COLLECTED BY THEM AS THERE ALWAYS REMAIN OUT STANDING BALANCE. 1.8. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE REI MBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AS COMMISSION PAID ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPE NSES ARE REIMBURSED AT FIXED RATE AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES BUT IT WAS PART AND PARCE L OF COMMISSION ON WHICH TAX AT SOURCE HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED AND CO NSEQUENTLY MADE ADDITION U/S 40A(IA) OF THE ACT. 5.3 THE CONCERNED PARTIES HAVE ALSO FURNISHED THE S ALE PATTI ALONG WITH CLAIM OF THE EXPENSES ON SALE OF CONSIGNMENT GOODS THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES GIVEN DETAIL THE 9 ITA NOS.54 & 55/AGRA/2013 A.YS. 2009-10 EXPENSES PERTAINING TO THE MONTHLY SELLING EXPENSES LOADING AND UNLOADING DEALING WITH EXPENSES. THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED AN D ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE ACCOUNT OF RESPECTIVE PARTIES. AFTER CONSIDERING TH ESE ARGUMENTS, WE NOTICE THAT THE IMPUGNED PAYMENT IS REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES A ND ARE NOT THE COMMISSION AS THE CONCERNED PARTY DID NOT GIVE ANY SERVICES IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT OF EXPENDITURES MADE. PROVIDING SERVICES IS ESSENTIAL LY REQUIREMENT OF THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION OF A COMMISSION. SINCE THIS CONDITION I S NOT SATISFIED IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THEREFORE IT IS A CASE OF REIMBURSEME NT OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CONCERNED PARTY ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDE R THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITY IS NOT CORRECT IN TAKING SUCH EXPENSES AS COMMISSION EXPENSES. THE FINDING OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THI S BEHALF IS ON PRESUMPTION BASIS, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT AGREEMENT/D OCUMENTS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASID E THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 5.4 SINCE THIS IS NOT A COMMISSION PAYMENT, THEREFO RE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194H OF THE A CT. SINCE THE PAYMENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, THEREFORE, PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE 10 ITA NOS.54 & 55/AGRA/2013 A.YS. 2009-10 ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE ISSUE. WE THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.28,14,174/- ITA NO. 55/AGRA/2013 - M/S. SURAJ BHAN AGENCIES (P) LTD. 6. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES SUBMI TTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ITA NO.54/AGRA/2013 IN THE CASE OF M/S PEE CEE COSMA SOPE LTD. ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ITA NO.55/AGR A/2013 IN THE CASE OF M/S. SURAJ BHAN AGENCIES (P) LTD. EXCEPT THE FIGURES. IN THAT CASE THE AMOUNT ADDED BY THE A.O. WAS RS.21,94,506/- AND RS.16,48,186/-. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF M/S PEE CEE COSMA SOPE LTD. (S UPRA) AND THAT CASE HAS BEEN DECIDED AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION MADE IN PARA NOS. 5 TO 5.4 OF THIS ORDER, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ADDITION OF RS.21,94,5 06/- AND RS.16,48,186/-ARE DELETED. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PBN/* 11 ITA NOS.54 & 55/AGRA/2013 A.YS. 2009-10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY