M/S. STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LTD, MUMBAI V. THE DY DIT (INT TAX) 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6921/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8507 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P J PARDIWALLA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Permanent establishment
• Section: 43B; 14A

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES L, MUMBAI .. , ! '# $% , & !, ' BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM ./ ITA NOS.2456, 2457, 2458/MUM/2006, 670/MUM/2007 & 7420/MUM/2007 ( &) * &) * &) * &) * / / / / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002- 2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005) THE DY.DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(1) MUMBAI. M/S.STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LIMITED 101 RAHEJA CENTRE FREE PRESS JOURNAL ROAD NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021. PAN : AABCS4465K. ( +, / // / APPELLANT) ) ) ) ) / VS. ( -.+,/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NOS.2536, 2537, 2538, 6930/MUM/2006, 6921/MUM/2007, 1422/MUM/2009, 2184/MUM/2010 ( &) * &) * &) * &) * / / / / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002- 2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007) M/S.STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LIMITED 101 RAHEJA CENTRE FREE PRESS JOURNAL ROAD NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021. THE DY.DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(1) MUMBAI. ( +, / // / APPELLANT) ) ) ) ) / VS. ( -.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / // / 0 0 0 0 / REVENUE BY : S/SHRI P.J.PARDIWALLA & NISHANT THAKKE R -.+, / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHESH KUMAR ) / # / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 26.09.2012 12* / # / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.10.2012 !$ !$ !$ !$ / / / / O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS, SOME OF WHICH ARE CROSS APPEALS BY T HE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE, RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 0-2001 TO 2006- 2007. ITA NO.2456/MUM/2006 & ORS. M/S.STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LTD. 2 2. BEFORE DEALING WITH THE PRESENT APPEALS, WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE CROSS APPEALS IN THE CASE OF THE PR ESENT ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 1999-2000 IN ITA NOS. 2254/M/2005 AND 3995/M/2 005 WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY HEARD. WE HAVE PASSED A SEPARATE ORDE R IN RESPECT OF SUCH A.Y. 1999-2000 DRAWING THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIO NS :- 1. HIGHER RATE OF TAX AS APPLICABLE TO NORMAL NON-RESI DENT COMPANIES SHALL APPLY. 2. EXPENDITURE ON PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS IS NOT ADMI SSIBLE DEDUCTION. 3. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CONTEXT OF COMPUTATION OF BUSINESS PROFITS AS PER ARTICLE 7 AN D ACCORDINGLY BONUS PAYABLE IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. 4. DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCO ME, THOUGH LOOSELY REFERRED TO AS DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A, IS SU STAINABLE EVEN AS PER THE DTA. 3. BOTH THE SIDES HAVE AGREED THAT BY AND LARG E THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THE A.Y. 1999- 2000. IN FACT, NO SEPARATE ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED IN RESPECT OF THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS UNLESS THERE IS SOME CHANGE IN THE FACTS OR LEGAL POSITION. WE SHALL FOLLOW THE ABOVE EXTRACTED VIEW T AKEN BY US IN OUR SEPARATE ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 1999-2000 WITHOUT REPEA TING THE REASONING GIVEN IN SUCH ORDER. HOWEVER, WE SHALL AD VERT TO SEPARATE ITA NO.2456/MUM/2006 & ORS. M/S.STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LTD. 3 ARGUMENTS WHEREVER THERE IS SOME DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS OR LEGAL POSITION ON WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE MADE SEPARATE SU BMISSIONS AND THEN DECIDE SUCH POINTS ACCORDINGLY. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 4. FIRST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST TH E APPLICABILITY OF HIGHER RATE OF TAX IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. SECOND GROUND ABOUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDIT URE ON PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS IS ALSO DECIDED AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE. 6. THIRD GROUND ABOUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF BONUS EXP ENSE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. FOURTH GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND THE SOLITARY GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME U/S 14A. WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 1999-2000 WE HAVE HELD THAT , IN FACT, THE DISALLOWANCE IS OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME, THOUGH IT HAS BEEN SYMBOLICALLY REFERRED TO AS DIS ALLOWANCE U/S 14A BOTH UNDER THE ACT AND THE DTA. SINCE BOTH THE SI DES HAVE ALSO PROJECTED THEIR GRIEVANCE BY ADDRESSING THIS DISALL OWANCE AS HAVING BEEN MADE U/S 14A, FOR THE SAKE OF SIMPLICITY, WE WILL ALSO REFER TO IT ACCORDINGLY THOUGH WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IN THE CON TEXT OF THE DTA IT ITA NO.2456/MUM/2006 & ORS. M/S.STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LTD. 4 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS DISALLOWANCE IN RELATI ON TO EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. 8. THE FACTS OF THESE GROUNDS ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE EARNED EXEMPT INCOME FROM TAX FREE BONDS. ON B EING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO FUNDS BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSES OF INVESTMENT IN TA X FREE BONDS SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED, THE ASSESSEE TENDERED THE SAME REPLY WHICH WAS GIVEN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. THE A.O. O BSERVED THAT THE GROSS INCOME AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS AT ` 40.36 CRORE WHEREAS THE TOTAL EXPENSES WERE ` 34.19 CRORE. THIS PERCENTAGE OF EXPENSES IN TERMS OF REVENUE AT 84% WAS APPLIED FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF TAX FREE INCOME. THIS RE SULTED INTO DISALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF ` 78,69,915. THE LEARNED CIT(A) BIFURCATED THIS DISALLOWANCE INTO TWO PARTS VIZ. IN TEREST EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO FUNDS BORROWED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN TAX FREE BONDS AND CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT EXPENSES IN RELATION TO EARNING OF THE EXEMPT INCOME. HE DELETED THE DISAL LOWANCE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PART BUT SUSTAINED THE ADDITION AT 2% OF THE DIVIDEND RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF MANAGEMENT AND ADMI NISTRATIVE EXPENSES. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN APPEAL AGAINST THEI R RESPECTIVE STANDS. 9. WHILE DECIDING APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 99-2000, WE HAVE HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS CALLED FOR. I NSOFAR AS THE INTEREST COMPONENT OF THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT FOR ITA NO.2456/MUM/2006 & ORS. M/S.STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LTD. 5 THE PRECEDING YEAR WE HAVE SUSTAINED DISALLOWANCE F OR THE BORROWINGS MADE FROM RESERVE BANK OF INDIA FOR ONE DAY BECAUSE THERE WAS DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS BORROWED AND INVESTMENT IN TAX FREE BONDS AND SUCH AMOUNT B ORROWED WAS REPAID ON THE SUBSEQUENT DAY AND FURTHER THE ASSESS EE HAD OTHERWISE SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS AT ITS DISPOSAL. IN PRINCIPLE, WE HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS CALLED FOR IN THE CURRENT YEAR AS WELL. AS SUFFICIENT DETAILS IN THIS REGARD ARE NOT AVAILABLE ABOUT THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN TAX FREE BONDS AND ITS CO-RELATI ON WITH THE BORROWED FUNDS, IF ANY, WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO TH E FILE OF A.O. FOR COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A ON THE INTEREST COMPONENT AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE NECESSARY DETAILS AFTER ALLOWIN G A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. INSOFAR AS THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT EXPENSES IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME IS CONCERNED, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE LEARNE D CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED SUCH DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS AT 2% OF THE DIVIDEND RECEIVED. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TOWARDS MANAGEMENT / ADMINISTR ATIVE EXPENSES AT 2% OF EXEMPT INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-200 5, WHICH YEAR IS ALSO IN APPEAL IN THE PRESENT BATCH OF APPEALS. AS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCORDS WITH THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKEN IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A SUBSEQUENT YEAR, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, DISALLOWANCE AT 2% OF EXEMPT INCOME FOR MA NAGEMENT / ITA NO.2456/MUM/2006 & ORS. M/S.STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LTD. 6 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IS IN ORDER. FURTHER, THE LD. AR SOUGHT NOT TO PRESS DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATIV E EXPENSE, IF RESTRICTED TO 2%. IN VIEW OF OUR RESTRICTING SUCH DISALLOWANCE TO 2% OF EXEMPT INCOME, THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. GROUND NO.5 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST DEDUCTION U/S 44C TOWARDS HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO IN DIAN OPERATIONS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES AT ` 91.65 LAKH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44C AND DETERMINED THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE ALLOWABLE U/S 44C AT ` 1.05 CRORE. SINCE THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E AT ` 91.65 LAKH WAS LESS THAN ` 1.05 CRORE COMPUTED U/S 44C, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR THE FULL AMOUNT CLAIMED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT PROPERL Y COMPUTED THE ADJUSTED TOTAL INCOME U/S 44C FOR APPLYING PERCENTA GE OF 5%. HE REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR WO RKING OUT DEDUCTION U/S 44C IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY H IM IN PARA 13 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ARTICLE 7 (3) DOES NOT TALK OF LIMITING THE DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACT. WHILE DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 IN THE ITA NO.2456/MUM/2006 & ORS. M/S.STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LTD. 7 CONTEXT OF SECTION 43B, WE HAVE HELD THAT THE RESTR ICTION CONTAINED IN SPECIFIC SECTIONS CANNOT APPLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE LANGUAGE OF ARTICLE 7(3) OF THE DTA. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE RESTRICTION CONTAINED IN SECTION 44C FOR ALLOWING THE HEAD OFFICE EXPENDI TURE CAN ALSO NOT APPLY. RESULTANTLY THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LEARN ED CIT(A) TO MODIFY THE ADJUSTED TOTAL INCOME AS PER SECTION 44C BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AS SECTION 44C ITSELF CANNOT APPLY. THI S GROUND IS ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002 14. FIRST GROUND ABOUT THE RATE OF TAX IS DECIDED A GAINST THE ASSESSEE. 15. SECOND GROUND ABOUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDI TURE ON PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS IS ALSO DECIDED AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE. 16. THIRD GROUND ABOUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF BONUS EX PENSES IS ALLOWED. 17. FIFTH GROUND ABOUT THE DEDUCTION U/S 44C IS ALS O ALLOWED. 18. FOURTH GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND FIRS T GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL DEAL WITH THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A . THE FACTS AND ITA NO.2456/MUM/2006 & ORS. M/S.STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LTD. 8 CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THIS YEAR ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 EXCEPT THAT IN THE CURRENT YEAR THE ASSES SING OFFICER DETERMINED PERCENTAGE OF EXPENSES TO REVENUE AT 90 % AS AGAINST 84% OF THE PRECEDING YEAR WHICH WAS APPLIED FOR COM PUTING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001, WE HOLD THAT DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/ S 14A IS CALLED FOR BUT THE EXERCISE FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF DISA LLOWANCE TOWARDS INTEREST, IF ANY, IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. INSOFAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND M ANAGEMENT EXPENSES IS CONCERNED, WE RESTRICT IT TO 2% OF THE EXEMPT INCOME. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 20. GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ABOUT THE RATE AT WHICH TAX LEVIABLE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 21. GROUND NO.2 ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE O N PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS IS ALSO DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 22. GROUND NO.3 ABOUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF BONUS EXP ENSES IS ALLOWED. 23. GROUND NO.5 ABOUT THE DEDUCTION U/S 44C IS ALLO WED. ITA NO.2456/MUM/2006 & ORS. M/S.STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LTD. 9 24. GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 1 4A. WE DIRECT THE AO TO APPLY OUR DECISION TAKEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2001-2002 FOR COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A BOTH IN RESPECT OF INTEREST AND ALSO MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. THE IMPUGN ED ORDER IS, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE TO THIS EXTENT. 25. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004 26. GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ABOUT THE RATE AT WHICH TAX LEVIABLE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 27. GROUND NO.2 ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE O N PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS IS ALSO DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 28. GROUND NO.3 ABOUT THE DEDUCTION U/S 44C IS ALLO WED. 29. GROUND NO.5 ABOUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF BONUS EXP ENSE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 30. GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 1 4A. WE HOLD THAT THE DECISION TAKEN BY US IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A FOR ITA NO.2456/MUM/2006 & ORS. M/S.STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LTD. 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002, BOTH TOWARDS INTEREST AN D ALSO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, SHOULD BE APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE TO THIS EXTENT. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 31. GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ABOUT U/S 44C IS ALLOWED. 32. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND THE ON LY GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 1 4A. WE HOLD THAT THE DECISION TAKEN BY US FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2 002, BOTH IN RESPECT OF INTEREST AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, SH OULD BE APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS, THERE FORE, SET ASIDE TO THIS EXTENT. 33. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 34. GROUND NO.2 ABOUT THE DEDUCTION U/S 44C IS ALLO WED. 35. GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A . WE HOLD THAT THE DECISION TAKEN BY US IN THIS REGARD FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2001- 2002 SHOULD BE APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH E IMPUGNED ORDER IS, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE TO THIS EXTENT. ITA NO.2456/MUM/2006 & ORS. M/S.STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LTD. 11 36. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 37. GROUND NO.1 ABOUT THE DEDUCTION U/S 44C IS ALLO WED. 38. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A . WE HOLD THAT THE DECISION TAKEN BY US FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2 002 IN THIS REGARD SHOULD BE APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE IMP UGNED ORDER IS, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE TO THIS EXTENT. 39. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 03 RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012. !$ / 12* 3!)4 2 / 5 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (R.S.SYAL) & ! & ! & ! & ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ! ! ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 3!) DATED : 03 RD OCTOBER, 2012. DEVDAS* !$ / -&#'6 76*# !$ / -&#'6 76*# !$ / -&#'6 76*# !$ / -&#'6 76*#/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +, / THE APPELLANT 2. -.+, / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 8 () / THE CIT(A)-XXXI, MUMBAI. 4. 8 / CIT 5. 6;5 -&#&) , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 5< = / GUARD FILE. !$) !$) !$) !$) / BY ORDER, .6# -&# //TRUE COPY// > > > >/ // /? @ ? @ ? @ ? @ ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR)