Income-Tax Officer,ward- 1(2), Panaji V. Shri. Ralino Anthonio Sequeira, Goa

ITA 80/PAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 8024114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONAL L SONKAVDE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAGHU PIKALE
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.80/PNJ/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2) AAYAKAR BHAWAN, EDC COMPLEX, PATTO PLAZA, PANAJI. PAN: AGVPS5005 (APPELLANT) VS. SHRI RALINO ANTHONIO SEQUEIRA PROP. IMPACK TRADERS & CONTRACTERS, 301, VRINDAVAN CHAMBERS, PATTO PANAJI, GOA. (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.85 /PNJ/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ) THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2) AAYAKAR BHAWAN, EDC COMPLEX, PATTO PLAZA, PANAJI. PAN: AGVPS5005 (APPELLANT) VS. LATE CHRISTINA SEQUEIRA L/H SHRI RALINO ANTHONIO SEQUEIRA PROP. IMPACK TRADERS & CONTRACTERS, 301, VRINDAVAN CHAMBERS, PATTO PANAJI, GOA. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. SONAL L. SONKAVDE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAGHU PIKALE, CA DATE OF HEARING : 20 /08/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/11 /2014 O R D E R PER: D.T. GARASIA (JM) BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - PANAJI DATED 12.11.2013 FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10. 2 . ITA NOS.80 & 85/PNJ/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) 2. THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS ARE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE S . 1) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2) ON THE OTHER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE WITH EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ASSET WAS ACQUIRED ON 09/04/2002. AS SUCH THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION TOWARDS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN . 3) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF TREATING AGRICULTURE INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH EVIDENCE BEFORE A.O. REGARDING DETAILS OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE, INCOME GENERATED, EXPENDITURE I NCURRED AND OWNERSHIP OF LAND BUT PRODUCED FRESH EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A C ONTRACTO R AND DEVELOPER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y.2009 - 10 ON 31 ST MARCH, 2010 DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,31,244/ - INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 52,000/ - BEING HALF SHARE OF BUSINESS INCOME, INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN. IN THE STATEMENT OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS DETERMINED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.50,26,878/ - AND AFTER CLAIMING THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN RECL BONDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 60,00,000/ - , HE HAS DECLARED THE INCO ME NIL. THE CAPITAL GAINS AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: SALES CONSIDERATION RS. 1,99,92,150 LESS: COST OF ACQUISITION AT 1,11,51,000 PURCHASED ON 09.04.2002 INDEXATION: 11151000 X 582 1,45,18,752 447 STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION 10.07.2008 4,46,520 1,49,65,272 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS 50,26,878 THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT AS PER THE SALE DEED 23.09.2008, THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED A LANDED PROPERTY SITUATED AT VILLAGE CONDOLIM, BARDEZ, GOA F OR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,99,92,150/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE SAID 3 . ITA NOS.80 & 85/PNJ/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) PROPERTY ON 09.04.2002 AS PER THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE CUM DEED OF DELIVERY OF POSSESSION CUM WORKS CONTRACT AND THEREAFTER EXECUTED SALE DEED O N 10.07.2008. FROM THE ABOVE COMPUTATION, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 09.04.2002 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE REASON THAT THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ONLY ON 10.07.2008, AND TRANSFERRED OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS COMPLETED ONLY WHEN THE CONVEYANCE DEED IS REGISTERED. IT IS SEEN FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS THAT NO SUCH ASSET IS REFLECTED EITHER AS AN INVESTMENT OR STOCK - IN - TRADE. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF THE SAID ASSET SINCE 2002, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE DATE OF ACQUISITION IS TAKEN AS ON 1 0.07.2008 AND DATE OF S ALE IS EXECUTED ON 23.09.2009. THUS, THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE SAID ASSETS BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS LESS THAN THREE MONTHS. THEREFORE, THE ASSES SEE HAS HELD THIS ASSET FOR NOT MORE THAN 36 MONTHS, HENCE, THE ASSET TRANSFERRED FALLS UNDER SHORT TERM CAPITAL ASSET IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(42A) AND ACCORDINGLY LIABLE FOR SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS TAX AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 45. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 9.4.2002 WHEREIN IT IS STATED TO BE AGREEMENT FOR SALE CUM DEED OF DELIVERY OF POSSESSION CUM WORKS CONTRACT. AS PE R THIS AGREEMENT , THE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF SAID PROPERTY TO BE PAID TO THE SELLER IS IN KIND. I.E. BUILT UP AREA OF 200 SQ. MTS. O R VALUE AT RS. 1 CRORE TO BE GIVEN TO THE SELLER. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT THIS PROPERTY IS BUSINESS PROPERTY AND IT IS NO T A CAPITAL ASSET, THEREFORE, NOT LIABLE TO CAPITAL GAIN TAX. THE SAID A SSET IS LIABLE TO WEALTH TAX SINCE A.Y.2003 - 04 B UT, NO WEALTH - TAX RETURNS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWING THIS AS AN ASSET. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING ALL THESE EVIDENCES THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS TREATED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 88,41,150/ - IN THE CASE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE, BOTH HUSBAND AND WIFE GOVERNED BY SECTION 5A PORTUGUESE CIVIL CODE. 4 . ITA NOS.80 & 85/PNJ/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) 4 . THE MATTER CARRIED TO CIT(A) AND CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SH ORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND TREATING AGRICULTURE INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5 . THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDING THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DETAILS NO SUPPORTING BILL AND VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED FOR SUPPORTING VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXECUTED THE SALE DEED ON 23.09.2008 A ND HAS TRANSFERRED THE LANDED PROPERTY FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1 , 99 , 92 , 150/ - . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY ON 9.4.2012 AS PER THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE CUM DEED OF DELIVERY POSSESSION CUM WORK CONTRACTOR, THEREAFTER, EXEC UTE D THE SALE DEED ON 10.07.2008. T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE HAS ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY ON 9.4.2002 AS PER THIS AGREEMENT CUM SALE DEED OF DELIVERY POSSESSION CUM WORK CONTRACTOR. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED AS PER THIS AGREEMENT THIS I S A SALE AGREEMENT TO SALE DEED . THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE SAID PROPERTY BUT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY AMOUNT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY SUBMITTED THE AGREEMENT CUM SALE DEED OF DELIVERY OF POSSESSION CUM WORK CONTRACTORS. NO BOOKS WERE PRODUCED. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SHOW THIS INVESTMENT IN RETURN OF WEALTH TAX IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DOUBTED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE EXECUTED ON 9.4.2002. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THIS AGREEMENT TO SALE FOR VERIFICATION, THEREFORE, AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THIS AGREEMENT TO SALE DEED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . THEREFORE, MATTER MAY BE RESTORED. 6. THE LEARNED AR HAS FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHI CH READ AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE WITH THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ASSET WAS ACQUIRED ON 09.04.2002. AS SUCH THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION TOWARDS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 5 . ITA NOS.80 & 85/PNJ/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) THE PROPERTY ADMEASURING 3186 SQ. MTS UNDER SURVEY NO. 104/1 SITUATED AT CANDOLIM, BARDEZ GOA AGREED TO BE PURCHASED FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1 CRORE OR 200 SQ. MTS. BUILT UP AREA. THE SAID PROPERTY IS IN CRZ (COASTAL REGULATORY ZONE) AND HERITAGE ZONE. NO DEV ELOPMENT IS PERMISSIBLE ON THE SAID PROPERTY. THE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED AND WAS REGISTERED ON 9 TH OF APRIL 2002. AS PER THE SAID AGREEMENT THE POSSESSION WAS GIVEN ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT. SINCE THEN THE BUNDLE OF RIGHTS ATTACHED TO THE SAID PROPERTY ACC RUED TO YOUR APPELLANT. THESE RIGHTS WERE CONFIRMED BY A SALE DEED DATED 10.07.2008. SUBSEQUENTLY THE SAID PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO WAVE IMPEX PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI ON 23.09.2008 , AS PER SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH DEFINES TRANSFER INCLUDES ; ANY TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE ALLOWING OF THE POSSESSION OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED IN PART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 (4 OF1882); BY EXECUTING AN A GREEMENT AND TAKING POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFER UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS TAKEN PLACE. IN THE SAID AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 09.04.2002, CLAUSE 1 AND 2 READS AS UNDER: 1. THE SELLER SHALL SELL AND THE PURCHASER SHALL PURCHASE THE SAID PLOT FOR CONSIDERATION IN KIND I.E BUILT UP AREA OF 200 SQ.MTS., OR VALUE AT 1,00,00,000/ - (RUPEES ONE CRORE ONLY) TO BE GIVEN TO THE SELLER. 2. THE SELLER HAS HANDED OVER THE PHYSICAL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE SAID PLOT TO THE PURCHASER. SINCE THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE BUNDLE OF RIGHTS ATTACHED TO THE PROPERTY ARE HELD BY YOUR APPELLANT FROM 09.042002 TO 23.09.2008, THE ASSET IS A LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET AND THE GAIN ARISING ON TRANSFER OF SAID PROPERTY IS A LONG TERM CAPITAL. THE ORIGINAL AGREE MENT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND A PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT WAS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AO AT PARA 6.4 ON PAGE 5 OF THE ORDER REGARDING THE WEALTH TAX LIABILITY IS TOTALLY ERRONEOUS FOR TWO REASO NS. 1. A. THE SAID PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN THE COASTAL REGULATORY ZONE (CRZ) AND HENCE NO CONSTRUCTION IS PERMISSIBLE EVEN TODAY. COASTAL REGULATORY ZONE IS AN AREA WITHIN 500 METER FROM HIGH TIDE LINE. HENCE IT IS NOT AN URBAN LAND AS DEFINED U/S 2(EA) EXPLAN ATION 1(B) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. 1. B. SINCE THE CONSIDERATION IS NOT BEEN PAID EITHER IN CASH OR IN KIND THE LIABILITY IS DEDUCTIBLE FROM THE ASSET VALUE. AS REGARDS THE NOTING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PARA 6.5 THE SAID DOCUMENT IS A NOTARIZED DOCU MENT AND AFTER THAT DATE YOUR APPELLANT IS ALWAYS IN POSSESSION OF THE SAID PROPERTY TILL IT WAS SOLD. 2. AS REGARDS THE PROPERTY IS TREATED AS STOCK IN TRADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER, YOUR APPELLANT HAVE TO SUBMIT FOR YOUR HONOURS KIND CONSIDERATION AS UNDER : 6 . ITA NOS.80 & 85/PNJ/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) THE PROPERTY WAS NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HENCE CANOT BE SAID AS BUSINESS ASSET OR STOCK IN TRADE. I) THE CONSIDERATION PAYABLE WAS RS. 1 CRORE IN CASH OR BUILD UP AREA OF 200 SQ. MTS. II) SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED AS AN INVESTME NT KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT IT CANNOT BE DEVELOPED, NO CONSIDERATION PAID IN CASH AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON DOCUMENTATION IS FROM HIS PERSONAL FUNDS IT WILL REMAIN AS PERSONAL INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. GROUND NO.5 AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS REGA RDS AGRICULTURE THE TOTAL AREA COCONUT AND MANGO IS 36315 SQ, MTS OR 9.08 ACRES. THERE ARE MORE THAN 600 COCONUT TREES AND 38 MANGO TRESS WHICH ARE YIELDING. THESE TREES ARE STILL GIVING INCOME WHICH CAN BE VERIFIED AT ANY POINT OF TIME. YOUR APPELLANT IS SUBMITTING HEREWITH FORM NO. I & XIV WHEREIN AREA UNDER AGRICULTURE IS CLEARLY MENTIONED. YOUR APPELLANT ALSO OWN 34.6 ACRES OR 138400 SQ. MTS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT BHOR, PUNE - MAHARASHTRA WHERE TURMERIC IS CULTIVATED. THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDIN G ARE AS UNDER: SURVEY NO SUB DIV. NO. VILLAGE TOTAL AREA SQ. MTS AREA UNDER GARDEN SQ. MTS, COCONUTS AND MANGO 46 12 ANJUNA 525 525 71 24 - D0 - 150 150 128 20 - D0 - 1,250 1,250 176 9 - D0 - 2500 2400 185 4 - D0 - 8600 4825 182 15 - D0 - 275 275 193 5 - D0 - 2600 2600 43 41 - D0 - 350 350 44 3 - D0 - 675 675 175 1 CALANGURE 15275 14500 41 5 - B SIOLIM 8240 8240 TOTAL 41040 36315 SURVEY NO SUB DIV. NO VILLAGE TOTAL AREA ACRES AREA UNDER GARDEN SQ. MTS, TURMERIC 60 1 BHORE - PUNE 34.6 138400 THE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY AT BHOR IS JOINTLY OWNED BY YOUR APPELLANT WITH MY BROTHER - IN - LAW (WIFES BROTHER) MR. CAMILO MASCARENHAS WHO IS RESIDING AT 7 . ITA NOS.80 & 85/PNJ/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) KHONDUWA, PUNE WHO IS TAKING CARE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THE DETAILS OF CROPS A RE AS UNDER: COCONUT 10,000 X RS.6 RS. 60,000 MANGOES RS. 30,000 TURMERIC RS. 50,000 TOTAL RS. 1,40,000 LESS: EXPENSES RS. 36,000 NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME RS. 1,04,000 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL BE DISMISSED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES, LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT EXAMINED THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DEED. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE AGREEMENT OF SALE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND AO AND CIT(A) HAS NO CHANCE TO VERIFY THIS AG REEMENT TO SALE, THEREFORE, WITHOUT VERIFYING THE AGREEMENT T O SALE, T HE CIT(A) HAS JUMPED INTO CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT AND POSSESSION WAS GIVEN ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT. WE FIND THAT AS PE R SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH DEFINES TRANSFER INCLUDES; ALLOWING OF THE POSSESSION OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED IN PART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY AMOUNT TO THE OWNER BUT ASS ESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT VERIFIED WHETHER ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY OR NOT. AS PER THE EVIDENCE, THIS PROPERTY WAS SITUATED IN COASTAL REGULATORY ZONE (CRZ) AND HENCE NO CONSTRUCTION IS PERMISSIBLE ON THIS URBAN LAND WHEN ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY THE COASTAL REGULATORY ZONE LAW WAS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY. THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED WHY THIS PROPERT Y HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SAME, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) TO VERIFY THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DEED AND WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID PROPERTY OR NOT AND REASONS FOR 8 . ITA NOS.80 & 85/PNJ/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) PURCHASING THE PROPERTY IN COASTAL REGULATORY ZONE. BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE RESTORED TO THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED TO PASS THE FRESH ORDER AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 8 . IN THE RESU LT, BOTH THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT ON 1 4 1 1 .2014. S D / - S D / - ( P.K. BANSAL) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 1 4 . 1 1 .2014 P.S. - *PK* COPY TO : ( 1 ) A P P E L L A N T S : - ( A ) S H R I R A L I N O A N T H O N I O S E Q U E R I A ( B ) L A T E C H R I S T I N A S E Q U E I R A , L / H S H R I R A L I N O A N T H O N I O ( 2 ) RESPONDENT ( 3 ) CIT CONCERNED ( 4 ) CIT(A) CONCERNED ( 5 ) D.R ( 6 ) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER