SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA, BATHINDA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

ITA 735/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0021 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J K GUPTA
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Salary income
• Section: 143(3); 2; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.735/ASR/2017 A SSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA 51, BHARAT NAGAR, BATHINDA. [PAN:AEEPS 6318B] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), BATHINDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. J.K.GUPTA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 05.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.05.2019 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGITATING THE ORD ER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BATHINDA ('CIT(A)' FOR SHO RT) DATED 04.10.2017, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING HIS ASSES SMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) VIDE ORDER DA TED 26.3.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13. THE APPEAL RAISES TWO ISSUES, WH ICH SHALL BE TAKEN UP IN SERIATIM. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IS IN RELATION TO AN ADDITION FO R RS.1,32,000/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE, A DEALER AND BROKER IN REAL ESTA TE, WAS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOUND TO HAVE CREDITED SUMS AGGREGATING TO RS. 23.54 LACS DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, INC LUDING RS.2.32 LACS FROM ONE, SUNITA MITTAL. THE ENTIRE AMOUNT CREDITED, BEING UN EXPLAINED, WAS ASSESSED AS ITA NO. 735/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA V. ITO 2 INCOME U/S. 68. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CA LLING FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO), CONFIRMED THE SAME IN RESPE CT OF CREDIT IN THE NAME OF SUNITA MITTAL, TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1.32 LACS. THIS IS COMPRISED OF TWO SUMS, I.E., FOR RS.1.0 LAC & RS.1.32 LACS, ON 11.6.2001 & 17.8.2001 RESPECTIVELY. THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR (WITH BANK OF INDIA/PB PAGE S 4 - 7) REFLECTED A CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.1,50,983/- ON 07.6.2001, I.E., PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER OF RS.1.0 LAC. HOWEVER, THE TRANSFER OF RS.1.32 LACS ON 17.8.2011 WAS PRECEDED BY CASH DEPOSITS FOR RS.1.47 LACS IN THREE INSTALLMENTS OF RS.49,000 /- EACH, I.E., ON 11 TH , 12 TH & 13 TH AUGUST, 2011. NO RETURN OF INCOME HAD BEEN FILED BY THE CREDITOR FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR (AY 2012-13). THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDIT WAS, THUS, REGARDED AS UNPROVED AND, ACCORDI NGLY, CONFIRMED IN FIRST APPEAL FOR BEING BROUGHT TO TAX U/S. 68. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. THAT A CREDIT, TO BE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED AS T O ITS NATURE AND SOURCE U/S. 68, IS TO BE ESTABLISHED IN TERMS OF IDENTITY, CRED ITWORTHINESS (OF THE CREDITOR) AND THE GENUINENESS (OF THE TRANSACTION), IS WELL-SETTL ED (REFER, INTER ALIA, IN A. GOVINDARAJULU MUDALIAR V. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC); SREELEKHA BANERJEE V. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); KALE KHAN MOHAMMAD HANIF V. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); HARI CHAND VIRENDER PAUL V. CIT [1983] 140 ITR 148 (P&H)). THE FIRST THING THAT, THEREFORE, WARRANTS AN EXPLANATION IS T HE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 1.47 LACS IN THE CREDITORS BANK ACCOUNT PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER TO THE ASSESSEE. IF THE SAME IS FROM REGULAR, EXPLAINED SOURCES, OR REP RESENTS HER CAPITAL, THERE IS NO CASE FOR DRAWING AN ADVERSE INFERENCE. HOWEVER, NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED QUA THE SAME NOR IN FACT THE CREDITORS CAPACITY DEMON STRATED IN ANY MANNER. ITA NO. 735/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA V. ITO 3 THEN, THE CREDITOR HAS NOT CHARGED ANY INTEREST FRO M THE ASSESSEE. SHE IS NOT RELATED TO HIM, SO THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY PERSONAL CONSIDERATION. THE ABSENCE OF ANY INTEREST INCOME FOR A.Y.2011-12 ALSO INDICATES THAT THE CREDITOR IS NOT ENGAGED IN GIVING LOANS FOR INTEREST. THERE IS, THUS, NO BUSINESS OR OTHER PURPOSE, FOR THE CREDITOR TO LEND HER HARD EARNED M ONEY WHICH ITSELF WOULD NEED TO BE SATISFACTORILY SHOWN, TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SA ME SERIOUSLY IMPUGNS THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT ASCRIBED TO HER. IF NOT F OR EARNING INTEREST, WHY WOULD ONE PLACE HIS HARD EARNED MONEY WITH ANOTHER, INCURRING RISK, I.E., WHERE IS NO BUSINESS OF OTHERWISE PERSONAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE SAME? I N FACT, EVEN WHERE THE MONIES ARE LENT FOR CONSIDERATION, THE SAME BEING UNSECU RED, ARE ONLY TO KNOWN PERSONS, WHO ENJOY CLOSE CONFIDENCE, BASED, APART FROM PROVE N FINANCIAL CREDIBILITY, LONG STANDING RELATIONS. THERE IS NO WHISPER OF ANY SUCH ASSOCIATION EVEN AS THE LENDING IS WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION. IN A LATTER CASE, I.E ., WHERE THE LENDING IS FOR A CONSIDERATION, THE CREDIBILITY AND ASSOCIATION, WHI CH CONTINUES TO ASSUME SIGNIFICANCE INASMUCH AS THE LENDING INVOLVES RISK, IS ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE AGENCY OF MONEY BROKERS. IT NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT RISK IS OF PRIME SIGNIFICANCE IN A TRANSACTION OF MONEY LENDING, TOW ARD WHICH THESE ARE MITIGATING FACTORS, ENABLING ONE TO PART WITH HIS CAPITAL TO A NOTHER. WHY, A PERSON MAY WELL DEPOSIT HIS MONEY WITH THE BANK, WHICH IS NEARLY RI SK-FREE, ALSO EARNING A DECENT RETURN ON HIS INVESTMENT. RATHER, NON-CHARGE OF INT EREST WOULD IMPLY A LOSS IN REAL TERMS ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATION, WHICH IS A FACT OF E CONOMIC LIFE IN INDIA. IN FACT, THE BANK RATE IS ITSELF PEGGED AT A NOMINAL RETURN OVER AND ABOVE THE EXPECTED INFLATION OVER THE TIME HORIZON OF THE TIME DEPOSIT. THE ABSE NCE OF ANY EXPLANATION, MUCH LESS SUBSTANTIATED, TOWARD CASH DEPOSITS, WHICH APP EAR TO HAVE BEEN PEGGED AT BELOW RS. 50,000/- EACH TO AVOID SCRUTINY, PUTTING A QUESTION MARK ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT, HAS ALREADY BEEN NOTICED AND EMPHASIZED. ITA NO. 735/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA V. ITO 4 COMING, AGAIN, TO THE ASPECT OF CAPACITY, THE RETUR N OF THE CREDITOR, SUNITA MITTAL, FOR A.Y.2011-12 SHOWS AN INCOME OF RS.1.80 LACS (PB PG. 8), INCLUDING RS.1.13 LACS FROM BUSINESS WHICH REMAINS UNSPECIF IED AND, IN ANY CASE, NOT DEMONSTRATED. THIS BECOMES ALL THE MORE QUIZZICAL I N VIEW OF THE CREDITOR ALSO HAVING SALARY INCOME, SO THAT SHE IS A SALARIED EMP LOYEE AS WELL. THE INCOME LEVEL, EVEN REGARDING THE ENTIRE OF IT TO BE IN CASH, DOES NOT LEAVE MUCH SCOPE FOR ANY CAPITAL FORMATION, EVEN AS THE REVENUE HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED CAPITAL AT RS. 1 LAC. RATHER, A BUSINESS MAN IS ALWAYS IN THE NEED OF FUN DS, AS INDEED IS THE ASSESSEE, ASSUMING LOANS FROM SEVERAL PERSONS AND, BESIDES, U NDERTAKING RISK THAT ANY BUSINESS ENTAILS. FURTHER, AS AGAINST AN INCOME OF RS.1.80 LACS FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.2011, A LOAN OF RS.1 LAC (IN JUNE, 2011) HAS B EEN STATED TO BE GIVEN. THAT IS, AT 55% OF HER ANNUAL INCOME, I.E., ASSUMING THE SAME T O BE AT THAT LEVEL FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AS WELL. THIS IS FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER R S.1.32 LACS IN AUGUST, 2011. THIS DOES NOT CORRESPOND WITH HER DEMONSTRATED CAPACITY. NON-FILING OF ANY RETURN FOR AY 2012-13 WOULD, RATHER, IMPLY THAT HER INCOME FOR THE CURRENT YEAR IS BELOW THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR THE YEAR. IN FACT, ADVANCE TO ANOTHER COULD ONLY BE OUT OF SAVINGS, REPRESENTING ACCUMULA TED CAPITAL, FOR WHICH NO CAPACITY HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED; THE EARNING LEVEL B EING BARELY SUFFICIENT TO MAINTAIN ONESELF AND FAMILY. THE CREDIT IS THUS NOT PROVED BOTH IN TERMS OF CAPA CITY AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT. THE SAME STANDS, THEREFO RE, RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO TAX U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. I DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. 4. THE SECOND ISSUE ARISING IN THE INSTANT APPEAL I S QUA THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S. 36(1)(III), RETABLE TO THE INTEREST-F REE ADVANCE OF RS. 15 LACS EXTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO TWO PERSONS, NAMELY, ASHOK MITTA L (AT RS. 6.50 LACS) AND BALWINDER SINGH (AT RS. 8.50 LACS), AT RS. 74,260. NO BUSINESS PURPOSE, APART FROM ITA NO. 735/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA V. ITO 5 STATING THAT THESE PERSONS ENJOYED GOOD RELATIONS WITH HIM, IS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARD THE PURPOSE OF THE SAID LOANS. THE OTHER LIMB OF THE ASSESSEES CASE I.E., HE HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST-FREE CAPITAL, ALSO NOT DEMONSTRATED, RESULTED IN THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST, RECKONED AT 12% PER ANNU M, ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. THE SAME STOOD CONFIRMED IN APPEAL, WITH THE LD. CIT(A) HOLDING AS UNDER: (PG. 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER) 4.2 I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE CONT ENTION ABOVE AND FIND THAT THESE CONTENTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED WITH THE HEL P OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH COULD SHOW THAT ENOUGH FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE TO EXTEND INTEREST -FREE ADVANCES. THE ONUS IS HEAVILY UPON THE APPELLANT TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ARE FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN CONFRONTED THE APPELLANT TO SHOW JUSTIFICATION OF ADVANCING INTEREST FREE LOANS, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH SUITABLE EXPLANATION. IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO MERELY CONTEND A PARTICULAR FACT ON T HE BASIS OF BALD AVERMENT BUT THE ONUS OF THE APPELLANT TO ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE WITH THE HELP OF ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO SHOW THAT INTEREST-FREE FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE. IN ABSENCE OF A NY SUCH EFFORT MADE BY THE APPELLANT I AM CONSTRAINED TO DISAGREE WITH THE AFORESAID CONTENTI ON, THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUND OF APPEA L IS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD. THE ASSESEEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXHIBIT ANY BUSI NESS PURPOSE OF THE RELEVANT LOANS NOR OF HAVING SUFFICIENT OWN CAPITAL , AS STATED (REFER GD.2), SO AS PRECLUDE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON BORROWED C APITAL U/S. 36(1)(III). A QUICK BROWSE OF THE BALANCE-SHEET AS AT 31.3.2012, THE YE AR-END (PB PGS. 1-3), REFLECTS THE FOLLOWING ASSETS (AT AN AGGREGATE OF RS.117.29 LACS), AS AGAINST THE CAPITAL OF RS.39.12 LACS, INCLUDING INCOME FOR THE YEAR AT RS. 8.44 LACS: (AMOUNT IN RS. LACS) (A) RESIDENTIAL HOUSE 85.31 (B) OTHER FIXED ASSETS 9.42 (C) CASH IN BANK 22.17 (INCLUDING FD RS) (D) SHARES/PPF 0.39 ITA NO. 735/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA V. ITO 6 NONE OF THESE PERSONAL ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE F INANCED BY ANY SPECIFIC BORROWING. THE ASSESSEE HAS, THUS, OVER-DRAWN TO TH E EXTENT OF AT LEAST RS.78.17 LACS (RS.117.29 LACS RS.39.12 LACS). I SAY AT LEAST AS THIS SHORT-FALL IS W.R.T THE CAPITAL AS AT THE YEAR-END, I.E., INCLUSIVE OF PROF IT FOR THE YEAR, WHICH CAN ONLY BE REGARDED AS ACCRUING EVENLY DURING THE YEAR. FURTHE R, THE SHORTFALL DOES NOT INCLUDE THE IMPUGNED ADVANCES (FOR RS. 15 LACS), WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE FOR ANY BUSINESS PURPOSE AND, TWO, THE CAPITAL BLOCKED IN S EVERAL PLOTS BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE TOTAL IN VESTMENT PORTFOLIO OF RS. 232.68 LACS COMPRISES INVESTMENT IN REAL ESTATE, I.E., ABO UT RS. 100 LACS, SOME OF WHICH COULD BE THE ASSESSEES, A DEALER IN REAL ESTATE, P ERSONAL INVESTMENT. THE SEVERAL DEPOSITS IN THE ASSESSEE SUPPLY (CREDIT) SIDE, APAR T FROM BANK LOANS, ARE, EVEN AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, SH. GUPTA DURI NG HEARING, IN RESPECT OF SPECIFIC INVESTMENTS IN LAND. THOUGH THERE IS NOTHI NG TO SHOW THAT SOME PLOTS, AS STATED BY SH. GUPTA, ARE EAR-MARKED OR BOOKED FOR A ND ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENTS, THE PROFIT ON THE SALE OF WHICH WOULD, IN THAT CASE, ST AND TO BE ALLOWED/TRANSFERRED TO THEM, THE DEPOSITS ARE CLEARLY TO FINANCE THE INVES TMENT IN LAND, WHICH ASSUMES THE CHARACTER OF A TRADING ASSET IN HIS HANDS. IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED BY SH. GUPTA DURING HEARING THAT THE BANK ADVANCES, WHICH ARE FR OM SYNDICATE BANK AND HDFC, ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY AGAINST ANY SPECIFIC PLOT, BUT BY WAY OF AN OPEN OVERDRAFT LIMIT. WHERE, THEN, ONE MAY ASK, IS THE SCOPE FOR ADVANCIN G RS.15 LACS OUT OF OWN CAPITAL, ALREADY SHORT BY RS. 78.17 LACS, I.E., WIT HOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SAID NON-BUSINESS ADVANCES. THE BANK FDRS, A PERSONAL IN VESTMENT, ARE AT A NOMINAL AMOUNT OF RS.0.13 LACS. THERE IS NO LEGAL OR FACTUA L BASIS TO ADJUST THE BANK BORROWING, TO ANY EXTENT, THERE-AGAINST; THE ENTIRE INTEREST BEING CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE U/S. 36(1)(III). THE UNSECURED DEPOSITS HAVE ALSO BEEN EXPLAINED TO BE TOWARD TRADING ASSETS AND, THEREFOR E, CANNOT BE APPROPRIATED AGAINST ITA NO. 735/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA V. ITO 7 PERSONAL INVESTMENTS; THE SHORTFALL IN CAPITAL IN A NY CASE BEING EVEN OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIAL AT RS.93.17 LACS (I.E., RS.78.17 LACS + 15 LACS). THE INFERENCE OF DIVERSION OF BORROWED CAPITAL FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE. FURTHER, THE ADVANCES BEING IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE YEAR, THE AO HAS R IGHTLY WORKED OUT THE INTEREST ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS TOWARD THIS DISALLOWANCE PLACED SO ME CASE LAW IN FILE, BEING ORDERS BY THE TRIBUNAL, AS IN MALHOTRA BOOK DEPOT V. ASSTT. CIT (IN ITA NO. 125 AND 196/ASR/2015, DATED 29.6.2016), BESIDES THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN PR. CIT V. HOLY FAITH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. [2018] 407 ITR 445 (P&H). THERE WAS, TO BEGIN WITH, NO REF ERENCE TO THESE CASE LAWS BY SH. GUPTA DURING HEARING, SO THAT THESE WERE NOT RE SPONDED TO BY THE OTHER SIDE. THE QUESTION OF DIVERSION OF BORROWED CAPITAL FOR N ON-BUSINESS PURPOSE WHICH IS IN FACT APPARENT IN THE INSTANT CASE, IS PRINCIPALL Y A QUESTION OF FACT. IT IS ACCORDINGLY TO BE DECIDED BY ISSUING DEFINITE FINDI NG/S OF FACT, BASED ON THE MATERIAL ON THE RECORD, AS HAS BEEN IN THE INSTANT CASE. HOW, THEN, ONE WONDERS, WOULD THE SAID DECISIONS BE OF ANY CONSEQUENCE. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT INTEREST-FREE CAPITAL THAT THE PRESUMPTI ON OF THE SAME BEING APPLIED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE/S WOULD HOLD, AS STATED BY THE HONBLE COURTS, INCLUDING THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. REFERENCE, IN TH IS CONTEXT, MAY ALSO BE MADE TO THE DECISION BY THE TRIBUNAL IN SUNIL GROVER V. ASTT. CIT (IN ITA NO. 97/ASR/2017, DATED 20.3.2019), WHEREIN IT HAS, IN EXTENSIVE DETA IL, EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SUFFICIENCY OF INTEREST-FREE FUNDS MAY BE COMPUTED, CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT (FROM THE FACE OF THE BALANCE-SHEET) IN THE INSTANT CASE. EVEN AS THE MATTER IS ESSENTIALLY FACTUAL, REFERENCE TO JUDICIAL PRECEDEN TS STANDS ALSO MADE IN SUNIL GROVER (SUPRA). THE DECISIONS PLACED ON RECORD HAVE THOUG H BEEN PERUSED TO FIND ITA NO. 735/ASR/2017 (AY 2012-13) SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA V. ITO 8 NOTHING STATED THEREIN AS CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN HELD IN THE INSTANT CASE. A RELIANCE THEREON, REGARDING SO, WOULD BE THUS OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. I, ACCORDINGLY, DECLINE INTERFERENCE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN CO URT ON MAY 29, 2019 SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 29.05.2019 /PK PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: SURINDER KUMAR SINGLA, 51, B HARAT NAGAR, BATHINDA (2) THE RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2( 1), BATHINDA (3) THE CIT(APPEALS), BATHINDA (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T TRUE COPY BY ORDER